Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Sunderland General Hospital

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available at the intensive care unit at Sunderland general hospital in (a) December 1990 and (b) December 1991.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Five beds were available at the intensive care unit throughout both of the months named.

Mr. Mullin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, for most of last year, only four of the seven beds in the Sunderland intensive care unit were operating, that five are now operating, although there is a staff shortage, and that the future of the fifth bed is not clear? Is he aware also that during that time scale many seriously ill patients had to be turned away and had to go to other hospitals and that patients using the unit had to be taken out of it prematurely so that others more seriously ill could take their place? How does that square with the repeated claim that the national health service is safe in Tory hands?

Mr. Dorrell: It is true that, on occasions last year, there were staff shortages in the intensive care unit at the hospital. The health authority has made it clear that it is initiating an inquiry to establish the levels of staffing and back-up staffing that are necessary to ensure that there are no shortages. I am advised that there were no serious repercussions for any patient at Sunderland general hospital last year.

Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that Sunderland general hospital will receive an investment of £19 million this year, of which £11 million is to be spent on a new acute ward block? That is part of Northern regional health authority's largest-ever capital investment, and it has been brought about by the Government.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the local example in Sunderland of the greatest-ever capital investment programme taking place in the national health service. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) might have mentioned that the local health authority has committed itself to eliminating all waiting lists of more than 12 months by the end of this calendar year.

HIV Infection

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make provisions comparable to those made to haemophiliacs to non-haemophiliacs infected with HIV as a result of national health service blood or tissue transfers.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We have every sympathy with the plight of those infected with HIV as a result of NHS blood or tissue transfer. However, we have not been persuaded that it would be right to extend the special provision which has been made for the infected haemophiliacs.

Mr. Strang: How can the Minister justify the Government's callous attitude towards those who become HIV positive as a result of national health service treatment? Surely she accepts that the Government were right to provide compensation for haemophiliacs who became infected through contaminated blood factor 8. Surely she must appreciate that there is no logical or moral case for making a distinction between haemophiliacs and non-haemophiliacs in this respect. That is the view of the Haemophilia Society and of the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the Government think again on this matter?

Mrs. Bottomley: Frankly, I find it extremely difficult to make judgments about any of the 5,451 AIDS sufferers, let alone the 16,828 HIV sufferers. As the hon. Gentleman of all people will know, we must ensure that we have effective, first-rate services for all those suffering from HIV or AIDS. We took the view that the haemophiliacs were a special case: they were doubly disadvantaged because of their hereditary condition and the onset of HIV, which compounded their problems.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: May I press my hon. Friend on this matter? Does she agree that haemophiliacs and others who are given contaminated blood transfusions receive them from the national health service? Does she agree also that we are talking of not one or two people but tens of people? There are more than 1,000 haemophiliacs and nearly 100 others who received contaminated blood transfusions. These major disasters are compounded by the fact that those people believed that the NHS would make them better.
How can my hon. Friend argue that compensation should be given to haemophiliacs because, sadly, they suffered a congenital disease and that a sick person who required a blood transfusion was in a different category? The result is the same—great suffering for the individual and great suffering for his or her family, probably the onset of AIDS and, ultimately, death. In those terms alone, have not the Government and the NHS a moral obligation to do something about the matter?

Mrs. Bottomley: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not believe that it is ever possible to cut a hard-and-fast line. Any case in which a patient suffers a medical accident is a great tragedy. However, the House debated no-fault compensation and, like the royal commission involved, took the view that it could not be justified. We made a difficult decision, and provided a generous settlement for haemophiliacs. Although my hon. Friend makes persuasive and powerful arguments, I cannot accept that they are convincing reasons for moving the line.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will be aware from her files that two of the 62 cases are my constituents. Does she accept that it is impossible to explain to them why patients who are haemophiliacs are eligible for compensation but they are not—even though my constituents have the same condition, life expectancy and financial pressures? It is impossible to do that because there is no logic to that argument. If it is difficult to defend where the line is drawn, it may be that the line is drawn in the wrong place and that it should be drawn instead so that it includes all those who were infected because of NHS treatment—not just some.

Mrs. Bottomley: As the House knows, Labour has no difficulty making pledges that would result in untold expenditure. The hon. Gentleman argues for no-fault compensation. Where it can be established that there has been negligence, of course compensation is payable. It is the job of the national health service to provide health care and treatment and to continue developing that treatment. I cannot convince myself or the House that the hon. Gentleman's argument is right or persuasive. I remind the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that, this year, £200 million will be earmarked especially for those suffering from HIV or AIDS.

EC Health Treatment

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce proposals whereby national health service patients could be referred to receive treatment in the EC.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Under current European Community regulations, individual patients may be referred elsewhere in the Community for treatment in certain specified circumstances, with the prior authorisation of the Department.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of our European partners, with a very high standard of health care, are offering to perform operations for which there is a demand in this country—such as hip replacement—at competitive prices? One health authority is already negotiating with a French hospital, but it is under the impression that it may not yet make use of that facility. Does my hon. Friend agree that such an arrangement would not only broaden the health services already made available to patients but achieve financial savings that could be ploughed back into the provision of other services?

Mrs. Bottomley: I urge my hon. Friend to examine more carefully the health arrangements in many European Community countries, because Britain is one of the few in which a patient may visit a general practitioner and receive hospital treatment free of charge. That is rare in the rest of the Community. Patients in France are expected to pay 20 per cent. and patients in Belgium up to 25 per cent. of the costs. My hon. Friend should again examine the relative costings. The figures that she gave referred to comparisons with the private sector, not the national health service. I want to ensure that we build on the success of the first six months of NHS reforms so that no one will want to go anywhere but to his or her most immediately available hospital to receive NHS treatment.

Dr. Kumar: Will the Minister make the point that, rather than look for treatment to be provided elsewhere in

Europe, the Government should provide hospitals in this country? For the past 10 years, my constituency has been promised a hospital, but no progress has been made.

Mrs. Bottomley: I much regret that such a new Member of Parliament should have picked up the churlish habits of other Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman's constituency includes the South Cleveland NHS trust hospital, which is a first-rate, second-wave trust. As the report produced last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, patients are getting a first-rate service from NHS hospitals and ever-improving treatment from the hospitals.

Dame Jill Knight: The problem is not just that frequently patients in other European countries have to pay for their treatment. They often receive a far lower standard of care than patients in this country. Is not it a fact that doctors and nurses in France were on strike recently, and that in Italy patients have to ask relatives to bring in food because none is provided by the hospitals? Relatives often have to provide non-medical care as well, and patients have to bring in their own blankets and bed linen. Will my hon. Friend note that I, for one, want to receive the superior care that our patients receive?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I seem to remember being told that the latest policy is to turn water cannon on the nurses; that does not strike me as the most helpful approach.
We do indeed have one of the best health services in the European Community, and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise its strengths. The report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State produced last week revealed that this year we are due to treat an extra 250,000 patients; we are cutting the number of long "waiters", and creating a service that is responsive to patient needs. Those are all reasons for us to have pride in our health service, rather than denigrating the achievements of all our public-spirited NHS staff.

Mentally Ill People

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of community care provision for people with serious mental illness.

Mr. Dorrell: I am today publishing an assessment of the case for hospital hostels for people with serious mental illness. In recent years, we have established the capital loans fund and introduced the mental illness specific grant. My right hon. Friend recently announced that the mental illness specific grant is to be increased by 50 per cent. in the coming year, and he is today announcing that we are doubling the size of the homeless mentally ill programme in London. This programme together provides over £100 million of new money for mental illness services in this country.

Mr. McFall: There could be no more tragically eloquent testimony to the fact that the Government's community care policies have failed than the sight of mentally ill people spilling on to the streets every moment. Although it comes late, I welcome the comment by the Secretary of State for the Environment that that sight is an affront to society.
May I point out, however, that it is not only for the convenience of passing citizens that mentally ill people should be cleared from the streets? What is required is adequate special accommodation, along with the necessary health facilities. Will the Minister give a commitment that there will be no further discharges of patients from long-term hospitals until places have been found for mentally ill patients? Will he also give an assurance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.

Mr. McFall: Will the Minister give an assurance that mentally ill patients who were ejected before the Government's U-turn will be given a rightful place in society?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every particular. First, he is wrong to assume that the policy to which he refers is espoused only by the Government: until now, there has been a bipartisan commitment to ensuring that mentally ill people receive care and facilities that are properly attuned to their needs.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked for a change of policy that would ensure that, before people were discharged from long-stay hospitals, proper provision was made for them in the community. That does not require a change of policy; it is the Government's policy. It is our policy that no one should be discharged from long-stay hospitals without the existence of a care programme that defines that person's needs—and, furthermore, naming an individual key worker who will be responsible for ensuring that the person receives the care that he requires.
The fact is that the hon. Gentleman cannot support his assertions on the basis of the available evidence.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that multiple questions lead to multiple answers and take up time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's announcement. Does he accept, however, that—sadly—many of those who are sleeping rough in our cities and elsewhere have indeed been discharged from psychiatric hospitals and have slipped through the care package net? Hundreds more are in our prisons, which are the wrong place for such people. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is a proper care package, properly drawn up, for every mentally ill patient who is discharged from a psychiatric hospital before such patients are discharged? If that cannot be achieved, will he ensure that psychiatric hospitals do not close until the necessary arrangements can be made?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the document that we are publishing today on hospital hostels. I agree with him that they have an important role to play in a fully integrated service for mentally ill people, but the House would mislead itself if it believed that those mentally ill people who find themselves on the streets are drawn from those patients who have been discharged from long-term care in hospitals. The great majority of homeless people who are mentally ill have never been in our hospitals. We need to ensure that the management of community care is improved to meet the needs of those who are discharged from hospitals and, more particularly, of those who have never been long-stay patients in our hospitals for the mentally ill.

Mr. Rooker: I welcome without qualification the Minister's statement and confirm that there is a bipartisan approach to this policy. However, we want that policy to be activated and managed. That is the difference between us. We do not want to stand idly by and do nothing. The Minister's announcement—which again I welcome without qualification—comes six years after the Audit Commission's report on care in the community, which in paragraph 28 highlighted the fact that then, six years ago, there were 37,000 fewer mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients than there were 10 years ago but that nobody knew where those who had been discharged were because nobody had done anything to find out what had happened to them. For six years, the Government have not taken a blind bit of notice of the Audit Commission's report. They have allowed their care in the community policy for ex-mental patients to amount to no more than people drifting within a community of hostels, in which one finds people who have fallen through the safety net and ended up homeless on the streets.

Mr. Dorrell: I find myself left wondering, if £100 million of new money is standing idly by, how much an action programme is going to cost the Labour party and when we shall see it properly costed.

Orthopaedic Treatments

Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what factor (a) hip replacements and (b) all orthopaedic procedures have increased since 1979.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): The latest figures for 1990–91 show the number of hip replacements up by 54 per cent. from 28,788 to 44,477. Latest information on all orthopaedic procedures from the hospital episode statistics is for 1989–90 and shows an increase of 18 per cent. from 554,000 to 656,000.

Mr. Day: Does my right hon Friend agree that the figures confirm the tremendous advances that have been made in health care since the Conservatives came to power? Does he agree that that is evidenced by the recent successful survey of the national health service? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that the last Labour Government introduced such swingeing real cuts in the health service that, if they were returned to power, it would represent a real threat to those who require advanced orthopaedic treatment?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. That is reflected in the fact that there are now about 100,000 more orthopaedic operations than there were in 1979. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) recently said to the House, rather chillingly, that if Labour were re-elected it would treat the national health service as it did last time. As Mr. Charles Webster, the national health service historian, recently told "Newsnight", that meant a splurge of spending at the beginning that was followed by the most desperate and dangerous cuts ever in the history of the national health service.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an enormous number of people in Herefordshire are very grateful for the spectacular increase in knee and hip replacements that has taken place in that health authority's area during the past 10 years? It is an


astonishingly successful programme. However, with a higher age structure, compared with the national average, demand continues to outstrip supply. In view of my right hon. Friend's waiting lists initiative, will he take special cognisance of that point and balance the distribution of that resource to reflect the age structure?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend knows that one of the changes that we are introducing is much fairer funding of health authorities throughout the land to reflect, among other things, the age structure. It is the duty of health authorities to meet the needs of local people by putting the money where it best serves those local needs.

Eye Treatments

Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for reducing waiting times in respect of eye treatments; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dorrell: We are taking vigorous action to reduce waiting times for hospital treatment in all specialties.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for many years within the referral area of the Plymouth eye infirmary, people have had to wait excessively long periods not only for an initial eye examination but for subsequent treatment? Will my hon. Friend tell us what action is being taken to improve the position in respect of new staff and new facilities and any benefits that might be derived from the new contractual arrangements?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that the ophthalmology specialty in Plymouth hospital has had excessive waiting lists. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the new structures and management priorities of the health service led the health authority to appoint a new ophthalmology consultant last week to provide extra sessions to work through the waiting list. The contracting system to which my hon. Friend referred has made it possible for the health authority to provide extra capacity for the specialty at Exeter hospital which will ensure that the waiting list can be worked off much more quickly than would otherwise be possible. My hon. Friend's constituency experience demonstrates clearly the higher priority now attached to reducing waiting times and the management system that is necessary to deliver that objective.

Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that the new cataract centre at Manchester royal eye hospital is dependent upon private patients to pay the £2 million loan for its refurbishment? Does he agree that that will lead to preferential treatment for private patients and creeping privatisation? Why on earth is his Department so scared of answering questions on this subject?

Mr. Dorrell: That question is not for the Government; it is for the hon. Gentleman and his party to explain to his constituents why it is in the interests of the patients of Manchester to remove private patients from NHS hospitals, to deny the NHS revenue that private patients bring and to deny benefits to NHS patients in general.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether the Opposition like it or not, waiting lists are going down? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and administrators who have made the reforms, the fundholders and the NHS trusts a success? Will my hon.

Friend ask the Opposition whether they will continue to embark upon their policy of abolishing those trusts? If they do not give an answer, will my hon. Friend take the Leader of the Opposition out for an Italian meal?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the deafening silence of the Labour party when last week we announced success in reducing long waits for NHS treatment. The House may be interested to know that, because we were seeking to look at the effect of NHS management reforms over the first six months, we did not draw attention to the fact that the number of people who have been waiting for more than one year on in-patient lists is 37 per cent. down on what it was when we took office in 1979.

Infant Mortality

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the infant mortality rate for each of the last 10 years.

Mr. Waldegrave: The rate of infant mortality per 1,000 live births in England and Wales has fallen from 11.1 in 1981 to 7.9 in 1990. The complete figures for the past 10 years will be published in the Official Report.

Miss Lestor: Although those figures are welcome, is the Minister aware that we do not compare well with our European colleagues and that our declining infant mortality rate is not as good as many of their rates? Also, there are big differences between social classes and regions in this country in terms of the opportunities for children to survive. Does the Minister consider it fair that, if a child is born in East Anglia, it has a far better chance of survival than if it is born in Yorkshire or in my region, where we recently lost five intensive care cots? Is not it right that all children should have access to the latest technology, irrespective of where they live or the poverty of their parents?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that it is right for the hon. Lady to knock the national health service in that way. In fact, Britain's figures are rather good. Some in Europe are better than ours, but we are better than some others and very much better than the United States. She will also want to welcome the fact given in answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that the percentage improvement among the poorest groups—what the sociologists call groups 4 and 5—has been greater than that among the higher groups, so the gap is therefore narrowing. That is very welcome.
I recently referred the subject of access to neo-natal facilities to the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, and we recently set up a confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. We are making steady progress, of which the country should be proud. We should also be proud of the NHS's achievement in that respect.

Mr. Conway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the improvements made in Shropshire, especially by the maternity unit of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, where two thirds of the Conway brood were born? Is he aware that that progress has been made not merely because of the skill of the consultants and of the nursing staff but because of the way they work together as a team? Therefore, will


he ensure that the district health authority does not break up that team in order to move it to Telford to try to keep an under-used district general hospital busy?

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that steady progress is being made, as my hon. Friend says. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for having tabled the question, which otherwise the Opposition might have accused me of having planted.

Following is the information:


Infant mortality rates per 1,000 live births: 1981–1990 England and Wales


Year
Rate


1981
11·1


1982
10·8


1983
10·1


1984
9·5


1985
9·4


1986
9·6


1987
9·2


1988
9·0


1989
8·4


1990
7·9

GP Budget Holders

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of budget-holding general practitioner practices.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's introduction of general practitioner fundholding has been a clear success, a fact confirmed in the independent academic research undertaken by Professor Glennerster of the London school of economics reported today by the King's Fund.
To allow the advantages of fund holding to be enjoyed by more patients and doctors, I am pleased to announce that we are lowering the list size eligibility criterion from 9,000 patients to 7,000 patients for practices entering the scheme from April 1993.

Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend's announcement is to be welcomed by GPs who welcome the principle of managing their own funds. It helps the NHS and its patients. Is not it now time that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) apologised to the House for saying that GPs were not interested in fund holding?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is true that the hon. Lady said in column 687 a couple of years back on 15 March 1990—[Interruption.]—that there was "no support among GPs"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: This takes a lot of time.

Mr. Waldegrave: She said that that was the position of all general practitioners of fund-holding practices. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite must get used to the idea that I shall read out what their Front-Bench spokesmen have said about fund holding. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) associated himself with the sentence:
I'll be surprised if budget holding does not collapse in the first year."—[Official Report, 13 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 946.]
He should have the grace to admit that he was wrong and the grace to clear up the muddle that has existed in his ranks since his colleague the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) recently announced that he

was going to abolish fund holding. I could not get a straight answer from the hon. Member for Livingston about this. I think that the House needs to know whether he will abolish fund holding in the teeth of opposition from virtually every GP and from the British Medical Association.

Mr. Kennedy: Will not the fact that the percentage of GPs who hold their own budgets still remains a very small fraction of the total number of GPs—even after today's announcement—linked to the nature of the block contract system of an internal market, inevitably mean that, if we are to avoid a two-tier health service in terms of patient referrals, either all GPs must hold their own budgets or none should be budget holders? The present two-tier structure is leading to a two-tier treatment of health.

Mr. Waldegrave: Like those on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is out of date. Professor Glennerster and others looked at the allegations and found no evidence of a two-tier structure emerging. Professor Glennerster said that it was clear that the benefits won by GP fund holders were swiftly being transferred to the patients of other GPs, which is what we said would happen. I think that the hon. Member, who belongs to a party that is supposed to believe in devolution, might occasionally support a practical piece of devolution.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that GPs were encouraged to introduce computerisation partly by an offer of Government funds to refund the cost of that process and, in districts such as the Wessex health authority, those funds have not been fully forthcoming? Will he agree to allow a carry-over into next year to ensure that those GPs who have introduced computerisation will be compensated by the Government, in accordance with the Government undertaking?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have been to a large number of conferences and met many general practitioners, including many from my hon. Friend's district. I have found no such systematic problems, but if there are specific difficulties in some practices, those involved should discuss them with their regional health authority.

Mrs. Mahon: Why does the Minister continue to misrepresent the views of doctors? Is he aware that the chair of the local British Medical Association branch in Calderdale recently publicly rebuked local Tories who were saying that GPs wanted to become fund holders? Dr. Whittaker had to say that no doctors in Calderdale had applied to become fund holders in either the second or third wave. Is it not about time that the Minister started to represent doctors' views properly?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am tempted to quote Oliver Cromwell and to ask whether the hon. Lady could conceive of the possibility that she might be wrong. I am making the extension because of the pressure from general practitioners who have asked me to extend the list size. People are queuing up to join the voluntary scheme.

Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fund-holding system has been a spectacular success—so much so that many of the more trendy, intellectual GPs who were initially sceptical of it now welcome it more and more with open arms? Will my right hon. Friend look


again at some of the procedures for recording, note taking and keeping records, as some GPs say that the system is a little too cumbersome and bureaucratic?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am very sympathetic to comments like that. The scheme will obviously be a permanent and beneficial part of health care in this country but is, I am sure, susceptible to improvement and further development, which I shall promote. My hon. Friend correctly records the honesty of many general practitioners, some of whom were sceptical. At his press conference this morning, Professor Glennerster said that, when he started his investigation, he was sceptical, but that he was converted by the evidence of his own eyes, and what he had seen and heard. I only wish that the Labour party had the same openness of mind.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Secretary of State does not believe that GP fund holding produces two-tier waiting lists, how can he explain the position in Manchester, where patients of fund holders are given eye treatment in a private wing, while patients of other GPs wait 13 months for an appointment? If that is not queue-jumping, what does the Secretary of State call it? How can he explain the position in Surrey and in St. Albans, where consultants are being placed under pressure by managers to give priority to GP fund holders because they bring extra money? If the Secretary of State does not recognise that as an example of two-tier lists, what will he recognise as such?
I shall answer the Secretary of State's question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is getting in practice and asking the questions to which I give the answers at Question Time, as it is a situation to which he shall have to become accustomed. The next Labour Government will end GP fund holding, because we shall not tolerate a two-tier list system in which the length of time a patient waits depends on the size of the GP's budget. There is a phrase for that policy—double standards. The Labour party will clear it out of the NHS.

Mr. Waldegrave: I offer the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) my heartfelt thanks for giving what is almost the first straight answer that I have ever extracted from him. I believe that he has, in a single word, delivered to us the votes of the majority of general practitioners in the country, for which I am most grateful. I urge him to study the remarks of Professor Glennerster, who knows rather more about this matter than he does and has laid the two-tier rumours to rest once and for all.

Nurse Prescribing

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made towards permitting nurse prescribing.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims) has introduced a private Member's Bill to allow nurse prescribing. It has the Government's full support.

Mr. Fishburn: I thank my hon. Friend. As, only a few months ago, she very charmingly killed a similar measure that I had introduced I doubly welcome her support now. Does she now accept that allowing nurses to write prescriptions against a limited range of medical products is a liberalising measure that peels back one layer of the onion skin in the bureaucracy of health care? Would she

care to tell the House the costs and benefits of this measure, which will be welcomed so much by doctors, nurses and, of course, patients?

Mrs. Bottomley: The House and, indeed, the nursing profession are indebted to my hon. Friend, who pioneered this measure in the House. I am very pleased that our hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is now able to take it forward. We did indeed commission a cost-benefit analysis by Touche Ross. That has been published today, and there is a copy in the Library. It shows that the cost is likely to be about 15 million a year, but the benefits will be improved patient care and a greater ability on the part of community nurses to use their professional skills to the full.

East Cumbria Health Authority

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of the Northern regional health authority to discuss the financial budget of East Cumbria district health authority.

Mr. Dorrell: I have not discussed East Cumbria's budget with the chairman of the Northern regional health authority. Establishing the budgets of district health authorities is a task delegated to the regional health authority.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister discuss with the regional chairman the formula base that is used for the distribution of money to the districts? Is he happy with the fact that one of the deprivation factors that he has used relates to car ownership? Does he realise that, in rural areas such as East Cumbria, many low-paid people need cars because public transport does not exist? Last year this formula robbed East Cumbria and my constituents of many thousands of pounds. Does not the Minister agree that it will be a travesty if the same formula is used this year and my constituents are therefore robbed of much more money that is needed for health in the area?

Mr. Dorrell: Some of my hon. Friends will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy of the rural cause. He raises a subject that he has discussed with me. I have told him that I agree that the way in which the region originally proposed to use car ownership raises some questions that have not yet been answered. That is why the Department has written to the Northern region saying in effect, "We hope you will take account of our reservations in the next year's allocations, either in the formula or in tempering the pace of change where you have yet to satisfy yourselves and us that the adjustment you propose is entirely reliable."

Mr. Jopling: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the East Cumbria authority, will he congratulate him warmly on the fact that having, since 1982–83, secured a budget increase, after inflation, of almost 15 per cent. and an increase in front-line staff of about 28 per cent., he has succeeded in securing a yearly increase of 42 per cent. in the number of in-patients and an increase of 152 per cent. in the number of out-patients? That is a very remarkable achievement.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the very distinguished record of that health authority. He might have drawn attention also to the fact that the health


service is planning to spend £36 million on a very substantial capital scheme at the Cumberland infirmary. The health service in East Cumbria is developing fast, to the benefit of all patients—my right hon. Friend's constituents and those of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).

Healthy Eating

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is spent by his Department on advice to the public in respect of healthy eating.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: During the current financial year, some £2.7 million will be spent by the Department and the Health Education Authority on healthy eating advice.

Mr. Banks: Is it not time that the Government diverted rather more of their enormous advertising budget into advocating the eating of vegetables to promote health? After all, the Minister is surrounded by a large number of them on the Conservative Benches. If she were interested in such a campaign, she could perhaps use as the model for it our own dear Speaker, whose radiant health and youthfulness make him the perfect epitome of a diet based on vegetarianism.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman's advice should be warmly taken by members of his own party. May I suggest that he directs that advice to those who think that the right way forward is a £500 roadside snack at the Savoy to raise party funds? It may also be helpful to those who dine at Italian restaurants and seem to suffer from Luigi's syndrome.

Sir John Stokes: Is it part of the Government's duty to advise us all on what we should eat? Is my hon. Friend aware that I have lived for a number of years without any such advice, and I cannot believe that it is really necessary?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend's view is worth having. On the whole, the advice is in favour of a balanced and sensible diet, and I think that the public wants facts and not fads.
Mrs. Heal: Why will not the Minister introduce nutritional guidelines for school meals to ensure that the school meals service plays a vital role in child nutrition, as recommended in the Black report a decade ago?

Mrs. Bottomley: We have had the excellent report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, which has been extremely helpful. A great deal of work is being carried out by the Health Education Authority, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that people have simple and effective information about healthy eating, and a great deal is being done on school meals, with the particular help of the wife of our own Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

South Africa

Mr. Andrew Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his policies towards South Africa.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I welcome the meeting of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa in December. The Government will continue to encourage all parties to play a constructive role in the reform process. In order to encourage the growth that the South African economy desperately needs, we shall continue to work for the removal of the remaining economic and financial sanctions.

Mr. Hunter: As many United Kingdom citizens live and own property in South Africa, or in other ways invest there, will my right hon. Friend discuss with President de Klerk the increasing violence there, and seek clarification on how the new South Africa can be built without the effective and practical renunciation of violence by all parties?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said, and I shall have the opportunity to discuss that with President de Klerk when he visits London early next month. I believe that all parties have a role to play in implementing the peace accord, but of course the South African Government have the primary responsibility for the impartial maintenance of law and order.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Prime Minister throw his full weight behind the proposition that an interim Government should rule South Africa during the transition period to democratic elections? As the situation is so delicate and as negotiations with the CODESA committees are currently under way, will he not—please not—do anything to damage that process by precipitate action on sanctions?

The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I do not think that precipitate action on sanctions is the point at issue. One of the great difficulties faced by the South African Government and people at the moment is the need to see growth in their economy, which runs at present with no growth, as against a population growth of around 3 per cent. a year. That is leading to very real hardship for all the people of South Africa—most notably those in South Africa who have least—so I think that the progressive removal of sanctions is desirable for economic and social reasons, and I hope that that progressive removal of sanctions will take place.
On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I wish to see progress made in South Africa. I think that that can best be done through the constitutional conference rather than by remarks from across many hundreds of miles.

Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that, even in the teeth of an international recession, the Government have achieved reductions in interest rates, which means that the family man with an average, typical mortgage of £30,000 pays £100 a month less? Does not that augur well for the home owner and the property market in 1992?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do welcome the reductions in interest rates and, of course, in mortgage rates that we have seen. In particular, I welcome the cuts in interest rates which three more building societies have announced this morning. The background of lower interest rates and a continuing reduction in underlying inflation provide what we most need—the opportunity for steady, sustainable, non-inflationary growth.

Mr. Kinnock: Why is the United Kingdom the only economy in the European Community that is in recession?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a number of European economies either have been in recession or are moving towards recession at precisely the moment when the United Kingdom economy is poised to come out of recession. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that there is a recession in many other parts of the world as a result of the general world trading conditions.

Mr. Kinnock: It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not answer the question that I asked. Perhaps he should refresh himself with the facts. Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland and Italy all have growth rates of over 1 per cent., Spain, Portugal and Holland over 2 per cent., and Germany and Luxembourg over 3 per cent. They are all growing; our economy is shrinking by 2 per cent. Is not that because this country and its people are paying the price for having a Government of unique incompetence?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Almost every country of the industrial world is experiencing economic problems. French unemployment has now reached its highest level. Unemployment in the United States is at its highest level for five years. In recent months, unemployment has risen in every European Community country except the Netherlands. It is higher than a year ago in every EFTA country and in every G7 country except Japan. The right hon. Gentleman cannot live in a cocoon and overlook those facts.

Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of cocoons, the Prime Minister should acknowledge that the USA, Japan, Australia and Canada are not actually in the European Community. In this country, under his Government, unemployment is going up faster, investment is lower and production has fallen more than in any other European country. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Why is that happening only in Britain under his Government?

The Prime Minister: The fact of the matter is that it is not, as I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, happening only in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unemployment and recession, why does he not acknowledge the impact that his minimum wage would have upon unemployment? Why does he not acknowledge what the £6 billion-worth of cuts in defence would do to employment? Why does he not acknowledge what the impact of his tax on savings would do to investment? Why does he not acknowledge what his strikers charter would do to industrial relations? Why does he not acknowledge what his party's attitude to inward investment would do to jobs in the north-east, in Wales, in Scotland and in many other parts of the country? The policies that the right hon. Gentleman follows will ensure a long-standing and deep recession in this country.

Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of policy proposals which would introduce a new payroll tax on every job in this country, policy proposals which would reintroduce secondary picketing, and policy proposals which would introduce a minimum wage which would put literally hundreds of thousands of people out of work? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those policy proposals go under the somewhat misleading title of "Labour's help to the unemployed"?

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister should answer the first part of that question, but not the second.

The Prime Minister: We have no plans to introduce any such policies. Industry knows that such policies would be absolutely disastrous to it and knows from what source those policies would come, which is why its hostility to the Opposition's policies is so severe.

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Prime Minister recall that, on 26 February 1991, I met him to discuss the case of my constituent, John Hall, who is seriously ill with leukaemia, an illness contracted while he was serving on Christmas island? At the meeting, the Prime Minister told me of his personal knowledge of the suffering of cancer victims and of their families and friends. He also told the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that he hoped that the matter would be expedited as quickly as possible. Almost a year later, nothing has been done. John Hall has spent the last year receiving chemotherapy and blood transfusions in order to stay alive. Will the Prime Minister please show some compassion and award John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans the compensation that the House and the country believe they richly deserve?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) renders Mr. Hall's case particular assistance in raising it in this fashion. I cannot go into the details of Mr. Hall's case. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government are willing to consider any claim where any evidence can be adduced of exposure to radiation. We are conducting a validating study into the background of this, and as soon as it is complete, we can reach a general policy conclusion. Until then, I simply have no evidence on which to base a response to individual cases such as Mr. Hall's.

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the tax implications of an extra £35 billion of spending pledges? If any Government were to bring in these pledges, they would either have to dishonour them and thereby deceive the public, or income tax payers at all levels of income would need to cough up and pay more to fund them. Is it not true that spending pledges such as those made by Labour politicians would mean that nothing would happen?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Prime Minister answers, let me repeat that a Member must ask questions about matters for which the Prime Minister is responsible; he cannot answer for Labour party policies. Answer the first part, please.

The Prime Minister: The implications of such spending increases are either that borrowing would rise to unprecedented levels, and no doubt interest rates with them, or, alternatively, that taxes would rise to a remarkable extent. It is noteworthy that those who advocate these policies also themselves concede in surveys that they would welcome an increase in the basic rate of tax as well as other tax increases.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall that the cause of reconciliation in Northern Ireland was tragically set back in the aftermath of the 1974 election? Will he agree that it would be appalling if we were to allow history to repeat itself after this election? Will he therefore support a cross-party approach to Northern Ireland affairs during the election and unequivocally reject any partisan trading with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in a way that would reverse the peace process after the next election?

The Prime Minister: This party stands four square against terrorism, and we have set out our policies from this Dispatch Box on many occasions. I see no imminent change.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a diabolical liberty for people to suggest that they can increase people's taxes by the underhand method of raising national insurance contributions, as is proposed by the Labour party? Is it not true that the choice for the British people is between our party, which calls for lower taxes and greater spending by the people, and the Labour party, which wants to take people's money and spend it itself? Is not that robbing Peter to pay Paul?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes her point in her own individual manner. As I have said before, if people advocate spending and tax increases, they should be prepared to defend them. The Labour party knows that its spending and taxation plans have been rumbled—and they dislike it.

Mr. Barron: Is the Prime Minister aware that, this morning, the Selby group of the British Coal Corporation announced more than 1,100 job losses at four coal mines? Will he get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to take action now, as he has been urged to do by the European Energy Commissioner, to stop pit closures in this country, given that we produce the cheapest deep-mined coal in the European Community? How long will the country continue to lose jobs and to lose access to the great national asset of our coal, given that the Government want to sell off British Coal overnight at a cheap price, for the benefit of the Treasury?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear of the job losses to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the only secure future for the coal industry or, indeed, for any other industry, is for it to produce something that people want at a price that people can afford. That is the only long-term future for the coal industry.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the House to calm down. I cannot even hear the words, "point of order". I shall take Mr. Andrew Faulds first.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If, in your judgment, Sir, a question is out of order, how can it be in order for the Prime Minister to have a response?

Mr. Speaker: What I said to the Prime Minister was that he should answer that part of the question to him that was in order.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Opposition Members can fully understand why Conservative Members do not want to ask the Prime Minister questions about Government policy, but can you confirm that the purpose and function of Prime Minister's Question Time is to ask the Prime Minister questions about the performance of his Government? Opposition Members would welcome the opportunity to debate Government and Opposition policies during the general election campaign, but, given that the Prime Minister does not have the guts to call an election, can you please ensure that, during the few remaining weeks of the Government's period of office, Prime Minister's Question Time will he used to ask the Prime Minister questions about Government policy?

Mr. Speaker: In my judgment, the election campaign started when we came back from the Christmas recess —[Interruption.] Order. It has ever been thus. If the hon. Gentleman will think back to days gone by, he will remember that such questions have been perennial in the few weeks before a general election. However, I say again to the House and especially to Government Members that they should ask questions relating to the Prime Minister's responsibility—

Mr. Ian Taylor: rose

Mr. Speaker: No, please sit down.
The first part of the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) was in order, but the second part was out of order, as was the second part of the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is in order for Conservative Members to put various policy options to the Prime Minister, and surely what really provoked the rabble opposite to make such a din is that they are embarrassed at the sound of their own policies.

Mr. Speaker: Outlining options is in order.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Is it not in order for Back Benchers at least to ask the Prime Minister whether the policies that are being promoted by the Opposition will most emphatically not be adopted by this Government? The Opposition are worried about their own policies.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that options are in order.

Points of Order

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and the fact that the news did not come early enough to make a Standing Order 20 application today, I wonder whether, if an application is made for one tomorrow, you will give consideration to enabling the House to discuss this important problem in the mining industry?

Mr. Speaker: It should have been submitted today.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that for some time now there has been a policy of inspired questions being tabled deliberately with the object of stopping Opposition Members from putting genuine questions? Will you take this up with the usual channels, because it is making a farce of Question Time? You ought to intervene with members of the two Front. Benches to sort this out.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for the questions on the Order Paper, provided they are in order. I have no idea whether they have been planted, and I am not responsible for the answers that are given.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In seeking to maintain the quality of debate in the House in the period leading up to the election, is it appropriate or parliamentary for the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) to intimate that the Prime Minister has not got guts, which is tantamount to calling him a coward? I hope that it is not appropriate and that you consider that it does not lead to good quality debate.

Mr. Speaker: To paraphrase "Erskine May", moderation in language is the keynote to good order in the Chamber.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that you, Mr. Speaker, have declared that the election has begun, and as you believe in fairness—your job demands it—I have a solution to the problem of the Tories continually wanting to know all about Labour party policies. We have four Question Times each week. We will have our side on the

Tory Benches for two days and their side on these Benches for the other two. Then they can ask as many questions as they like.

Mr. Speaker: That is an ingenious suggestion, but I think that I had better not give my personal views.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We should move on. We have a very heavy day ahead of us.

Mr. William O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) pointed out that 1,100 jobs are to go in Yorkshire. A substantial number of them are in my constituency. Therefore, in view of the fact that we cannot have a debate under Standing Order 20, will you prevail upon the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement so that we can question him on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what has been said about this matter, of which I had no knowledge before 12 o'clock, has been heard by the Leader of the House.
I will take one more point of order. I call Mr. Kevin Barron, since he raised the matter.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The British Coal Corporation has got it down to an art now. Anything that it says about job losses is always said after 12 noon, when it is impossible to make an application for a debate. Indeed, it announced the closure of the Grimethorpe fluidised bed programme today, and the press release was marked "Embargoed until 1 pm".

Mr. Speaker: May I stop the hon. Member there?

Mr. Barron: They come in here and use the procedure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the information came out after 12 o'clock? If that is the case, I would certainly consider an application tomorrow under Standing Order 20, but now we should move on.

Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has had one opportunity today. We must move on.

Representation of the People (Amendment)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law to provide that each parliamentary constituency shall be represented by a woman and by a man; to make a consequential reorganisation of constituency boundaries; and for connected purposes.
I wish to introduce the Bill to enable more women to be elected to the House. It will not have escaped your eagle eye, Mr. Speaker, that the mother of Parliaments consists largely of fathers and that, despite the 64 years in which women have had the vote and the many able women who have put themselves forward for selection as parliamentary candidates, less than 6 per cent. of the Members of the House are women. I do not seek special privileges for women. I simply seek to redress an anomaly in our legislative procedure. That can be done without disturbing the position of any existing Member.
We have women's issues in politics, but we do not have men's issues. That is becuse there is a good number of men in the Chamber who will take up issues relating to men. Because there are relatively few women Members, both political parties pay lip service to the idea of having more women, yet seem unable to achieve that objective.
There is no question but that women make admirable and competent politicians all the way up to the level of Prime Minister. There is no lack of talent among women. In the last decade women have made enormous strides. They are better educated. More of them go to university. They are better trained. As many women as men are now training in most professions. They have better jobs. They earn better salaries and wages. But their representation in the House still does not reflect the fact that half the population are women. In that respect, Parliament is trailing behind public opinion and the reforms which we have seen elsewhere in the community.
My proposal would not mean doubling the number of Members of Parliament, it would not threaten the position of any existing Member, but it would improve the choice for the voter. I propose the introduction of a system whereby each constituency would put up a list of men candidates and a list of women candidates and a voter would have two votes, choosing one from each list. That could easily be achieved by the Boundary Commission amalgamating constituencies so that each constituency would be represented by two Members.
There would be other advantages. If, for example, a person was so small-minded as not to want a woman to represent him, he could still vote for a man. If, on the other hand, someone would rather take up problems with a woman, that person would, under my proposal, eventually have a woman Member to approach. With natural wastage and retirement, it would take three or four elections to achieve that goal.
In Germany, all constituencies have two Members of Parliament, two lists of candidates and two votes. It is common for people in Britain to vote for two or more candidates in local government elections. In the United

States each state is represented by two senators, often from different parties, so that there is one Republican and one Democrat. That shows that there is nothing complicated or difficult in what I am proposing.
As I have said, I am not seeking to promote any advantage for women; I simply seek equality. A woman is regarded by many selection committees, for better or worse, as not being the typical Member of Parliament. The image of a Member is still that of a man. We have to overcome that prejudice.
The House should be a mirror reflecting all aspects of society. It should reflect the ambitions, aspirations and concerns of the majority of electors who are women. Although I do not deny that under the Conservative party of the last decade women have made enormous strides, it is still a contentious issue that every time there is an election we have to have special women's areas and policies.
I disagree with positive discrimination. I disagree also with the idea that there should be a Minister for women's affairs. Neither of those matters would be political issues, however, if it were natural for every voter in Britain to have the opportunity on his ballot paper to vote for both a man and a woman. By adopting that approach we would take the issues of women's politics and feminism outside the deliberations of the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I do not wish to make a long speech, but I cannot allow my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to get away with this nonsense. As a former teaching colleague of mine said, this is just plain daft. In 22 years in the House I have never heard a more silly proposition put before it. In deference to your successors, Mr. Speaker, who will sit in the Chair and decide, if my hon. Friend's Bill is enacted, whether to call the male Member or the female Member for a constituency, to our constituents and to the Parliament that we all seek to serve, we should quickly throw out the Bill without ceremony.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mrs. Gorman: Mrs. Edwina Currie, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. David Amess, who in the circumstances I propose to be my pair, and myself, Sir.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Ms. Clare Short and Mr. David Amess.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law to provide that each parliamentary constituency shall be represented by a woman and by a man; to make a consequential reorganisation of constituency boundaries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 January and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

Orders of the Day — Asylum Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Sir Philip Goodhart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note with regret that proposed new clauses 8 and 9 were not selected for debate. New clause 9 dealt with the difficult problem of special care for the unaccompanied children of asylum seekers. That aspect was debated at length in Committee, but was not pressed to a Division after the Minister indicated that he might be having further thoughts.
New clause 9 dealt in effect with the difficult problem confronting London boroughs. About 30,000 asylum-seeking households will come to this country this year, and the majority will arrive in London. That will place a heavy burden on London boroughs. Again, that aspect was discussed at length in Committee, there was no Division, and the Minister indicated that he might have further thoughts.
As those two issues are important, may I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how one may raise them during today's debate?

Mr. Speaker: They may certainly be raised on Third Reading. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I always examine carefully all amendments that are submitted, and in particular whether any undertakings were definitely given in Committee. I am not required to give the reasons for my selection of amendments, but in the case of new clause 8, new legislation is not required.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was considerable debate in Committee on the future of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service—particularly in relation to the future provision of advice and representation for those seeking political asylum, but also in respect of broader immigration matters.
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department met the executive committee of UKIAS. There has been considerable press speculation in the last few weeks about UKIAS's future arrangements. It appears that the Government are seeking to establish an autonomous refugee unit that would remain part of UKIAS, but would put the rest of that organisation on notice that unless it agreed to proposals to introduce a new constitution, executive, and management committee, there would be a clear prospect of no future funding for UKIAS.

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of all those matters, which are for the Government to consider, not me. Those are the very questions that the hon. Gentleman should seek to raise in the debate that will follow. If the Government have made a decision of that kind, there will be opportunities to debate it on the Floor of the House or perhaps in another place.

Mr. Madden: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but I wondered whether the Under-Secretary had indicated to you when he will make a statement about the Government's proposals for the future of UKIAS and of advice and representation. No amendment relates directly

to UKIAS, which is a major pillar on which this squalid Bill rests. That pillar seems to be extremely creaky. When will the Minister tell the House what he has agreed with UKIAS, what will be available to those seeking political asylum in terms of advice and administration, and what is the future of UKIAS? That major organisation seems to be in chaos.

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of any of that, though I am interested from the point of view of my own constituency. Those questions should be addressed to the Minister. The remarks made by the hon. Gentleman under the guise of a point of order will have been heard by the relevant Ministers on the Front Bench—and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will receive an answer to his questions if he puts them during the debate.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not on the same matter.

Mr. Winnick: I merely want your advice, Mr. Speaker. As you may or may not know, I am a former chairman of UKIAS. I am not involved in any way with the organisation now, but its position is a matter of legitimate concern not only to hon. Members who are in the Chamber but to many others who—as you have said, Mr. Speaker—have advised constituents, or their relatives or friends, to go to that organisation.
It would, of course, be helpful if, during our debate on the new clauses, the Minister referred to the discussions that he had yesterday. I realise that that is entirely outside your control, Mr. Speaker, but it would be rather unfortunate if we engaged in a lengthy debate on various clauses without knowing the Government's intentions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said a number of reports have appeared in the newspapers. We do not know whether those reports are accurate, and—like my hon. Friend—I am in no way involved in any form of mischief-making. The position of UKIAS is very important, and it would help the House a good deal if the Home Secretary or the Minister could tell us whether the matter will be dealt with in our initial debate.

Mr. Speaker: Those are not matters for me, but the hon. Gentleman's remarks may serve as a warning to the Minister that they may be raised in the debate.

New Clause 2

REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE

'.—(1) Within three months of this Act receiving the Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on arrangements made by him for ensuring that persons making a claim for asylum and asylum-seekers (called in this section "applicants") have satisfactory access to advice and representation from advisers and representatives of their choice and where necessary access to independent interpreters.

(2) Such a report shall describe the arrangements made for ensuring that access to advisers and representatives of an applicant's choice is not hindered nor inhibited by the applicant's lack of means, language, age or the fact that the applicant has been detained, and that advice and representation is provided without undue delay.'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take new clause 10—

ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE—

'.—(1) A person who is in detention at a port of entry, an immigration detention centre, or other premises and is making an asylum claim shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice privately at any time.

(2) A custody record shall be kept for a person who is in detention at a port of entry, an immigration detention centre or other premises, and is making an asylum claim.

(3) A request under subsection (1) above and the time at which it was made shall be recorded in the custody record or record of the interview or the appropriate record of detention.

(4) If a person making an asylum claim makes such a request, he must be permitted to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice as soon as is practicable.

(5) At any interview or hearing in connection with a claim for asylum a person must be permitted to consult a solicitor or adviser of his choice, and must be informed of this entitlement in advance of the interview or hearing, in the language of his choice.'.

Mr. Hattersley: The purpose of the new clause is, or ought to be, wholly uncontentious and wholly unexeptionable. Our intention is simply to ensure that persons seeking asylum in this country are guaranteed adequate legal advice and representation. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could oppose that proposition, or vote against a new clause that literally does no more than lay a requirement on the Government and their successors.
During our previous debate on the Bill, the Opposition took particular exception to many of the legal aspects. The argument was not about the propriety of keeping bogus
asylum seekers out of the country; on that, all three parties are united. It was about the legal procedures whereby the process should be carried out.
I am happy to say—this is directly relevant to a measure that concerns legal provision and legal services—that in a number of particulars, all related to the operation of the law, the Government have capitulated over the past few days. The new rules—placed in the Library at midday, I understand, and thus available only to the most perceptive Members and those who read fastest set out a number of the changes in legal procedures for which we called. Let me give some examples.
The period in which an appeal may be mounted has been increased to 10 days. Applicants who arrive without documents—and who, originally, would be assumed to be fraudulent or trying to break the immigration and asylum regulations—will now be able to advance reasonable explanations of why their documents are deficient. Applicants will not find that the actions of other persons are held against them when they apply to remain here. It
appears, at least, that oral hearings—about which we said so much on Second Reading, and about which my hon.
Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said so much in Committee—are to become more regular and more common. They may even take place invariably; no doubt the Minister will interpret the rules.
All those changes improve the Bill enormously. If I did not welcome them, I might even describe them as a climbdown. I have read with some amusement the comments that the Home Secretary made about our

suggestions when we made them on Second Reading three months ago. None the less, although these improvements, or capitulations, are very welcome, they emphasise the basic principle that underlies the new clause: the absolute necessity for the applicant who takes advantage of the improved procedures to be provided with the legal services, counselling and representation that meet his or her needs.
To understand the present position, the House must remind itself of the history of legal representation and of the Government's attitude towards it. On 2 July the Home Secretary told the House that he intended to withdraw legal aid from asylum seekers. The green form scheme was to be abandoned for asylum seekers, particularly asylum seekers facing appeal. He said that the work carried out on behalf of many asylum seekers by solicitors acting under the provisions of the legal aid arrangements was to be carried out entirely by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service—which I cannot bring myself to call "Yewkyass" because it sounds more like a Hittite king than an organisation in Britain in 1992.
4 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I had the temerity to ask the Home Secretary, after he had made his statement, whether he was sure that that organisation was the best organisation to carry out the work, whether it had the funds to do it, whether it was equipped to do it and whether it was prepared to do it. With typical foolishness, the Home Secretary accused us of casting a slur on UKIAS by even suggesting that it was important to determine whether that was the appropriate organisation to carry out the work.
Today—far from insisting that UKIAS be the sole provider of legal advice for asylum seekers—the Home Secretary proposes to prohibit it from doing any of the work. The Government intend to remove altogether the refugee unit from UKIAS. A letter sent yesterday, and I think also received yesterday, from the Under-Secretary of State to UKIAS is adamant, specific and unequivocal. The grant which covers work done by and for asylum seekers is to be removed. The letter also threatens to transfer all UKIAS grants—that is, for work done with immigration as well as asylum seekers—to a new body.
That new body is not specified in the letter. I understand that the Government have not yet determined what that new body should be. That new body is to be set up, but under what constitution no one knows. All we know is that during the last four months the Government have moved their position by 180 deg. In July, only UKIAS was to be allowed to do the work. Now anybody else, somebody else, an unspecified institution, is to do the work because UKIAS is deficient in every particular.
We have to ask why UKIAS is deemed to be unsuitable to carry out these tasks. I doubt whether the Under-Secretary of State will tell us that it is because of its managerial incompetence, because the chairman of UKIAS is the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Small Heath division of Birmingham. I suspect that he will say things that are not over-specific and that he will leave us with the general impression that the Home Secretary and his colleagues are simply dissatisfied with the way in which the work might be carried on.
The truth of the matter is very different. The truth is that UKIAS rightly, in my view, stated within hours of the


Home Secretary's statement that it was wholly wrong that one agency should be the exclusive provider of legal assistance to asylum seekers. One might argue that that was very much against its own direct interests. If UKIAS had wanted to enhance its status, or to increase its grant, it might have said, "We will do the work and we shall let nobody else do it." However, UKIAS said—in my view, wholly properly—that in this area it was important that a choice of legal advice should be provided.
Who can argue with the contention that a man or woman, threatened with a return to persecution or death, should have the right to make a choice between different solicitors and different barristers rather than to be allocated legal advice by and from an institution which I very much admire but which in the eyes of many asylum seekers, who have come not from democracies but from tyrannies, is funded by the Government and, therefore, is likely to be biased in the Government's favour? I certainly do not make that accusation against UKIAS. I have had nothing but help from the service in my constituency. The work that it does in Birmingham, the only area in which I have direct experience of its practices, is admirable in every particular.
However, we delude ourselves if we do not admit and understand that when a man or woman comes here from a tyranny or a totalitarian state and applies for asylum, the idea that their case for staying should be argued by an institution that is funded by the Government who are trying to prevent them from staying is a clear deterrent to their accepting the advice and going through the process. That was the view of the Opposition, the Bar, the Law Society and the Commission for Racial Equality. It was also the view of UKIAS, which said simply that it did not believe that it should be given the work exclusively and that the green form scheme legal aid should be preserved. That is why the Government have chosen to take the work away from it.
One option open to the Government was to lose face by admitting that they were wrong in July and saying that, while UKIAS goes on with much of the work, the legal aid green form provision will continue. That would have been the sort of climbdown that the Home Secretary does not enjoy, even though he has become increasingly used to that over the past six months. That, together with the other five capitulations in the regulations, would, I suspect, have been too much for the Home Secretary to swallow. Therefore, the organisation is to have its powers to provide legal assistance for asylum seekers removed and it has been threatened with the total removal of its grant, which would mean that it would virtually come to a halt and be destroyed.
I do not want to detain the House with procedural questions, but there is the question of the letter between the Under-Secretary and UKIAS which was sent yesterday and which will be the subject of some debate as the new clause is discussed. I assume that if the Minister refers to it, that paper, being an official document written by a Minister of the Crown, must be put in the Library and made available to all hon. Members. Anyone who reads the letter will understand that, as was the case in the autumn, the Government are again threatening UKIAS. They are saying, "Do what we require of you, act as our agent, or your grant will be totally removed and your existence will, at least, be threatened, and you will probably be obliterated." That is intolerable for a Government relationship with an agency that spends

much of its time arguing against Government decisions on immigration and asylum. The United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service should not be the creature of the Government. Its nature should be independent. That is an example of the standards that are now common under this Government; an agency that they fund has to bend to the Minister's will or its funds are arbitrarily removed.
The Under-Secretary should announce—I doubt whether he will, and it will be left to us to introduce the proper procedures in two or three months—that the Government will bite the bullet and accept the error. He should say that legal aid will continue to be made available to asylum seekers entering this country and appealing against orders for their exclusion. Having made it clear that legal aid will remain, he should then say that UKIAS shall continue to do the work that is freely given to it by asylum seekers who choose the legal route. I do not mind if he also says that he is interested in the central administration of UKIAS or that he wants the Government auditors to keep an eye on how the money is spent. That is a normal, sober and sensible provision when Government grants go to outside agencies. However, the principle is clear: legal aid should remain and a man or woman under threat should be enabled to choose the representation that they think best suits their case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The right hon. Gentleman talked about choosing representation. It has never been open to an immigrant appellant asylum seeker under ordinary immigration rules to have representation paid for by the state from legal aid, which is what the right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting. It has always been that representation before a tribunal would be paid for when it was an immigration tribunal, but only through UKIAS. That was the arrangement when the Labour Government were in office. Has the right hon. Gentleman now abandoned that practice and is he saying that UKIAS will no longer have the monopoly of free representation as it does now, or has he confused himself about legal aid and green forms, representation and advice? It sounds as if he has from what he is saying?

Mr. Hattersley: I have not confused myself, but I fear that I have confused the Minister. What I am saying—and what I repeat as my final word—is that we should revert to
the system that operated successfully before the Home Secretary's announcement on 2 July. That announcement curtailed the green form scheme, abandoned legal aid—

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry to intervene again and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The green form scheme has not been curtailed. The Home Secretary's statement and the Lord Chancellor's statement contained merely a proposal to the effect that they were considering the idea. It has not been done.

Mr. Hattersley: The statement said categorically that it was the Home Secretary's intention to abandon green forms and legal aid altogether in this matter and to concentrate the entire work on UKIAS. If the Under-Secretary wants to pick me up on my tenses, he is right to say that it was not done then, but it was announced then. That is a distinction of such triviality that it does not profit the House to waste its time on it. The statement made it clear—and I shall read it to the Home Secretary if I get the opportunity to intervene again—that that was the


Government's firm intention, against which I and my hon. Friends argued. It was an intention which UKIAS resisted, and it is because of that resistance that it is to be disbanded. If the Under-Secretary is saying that the Home Secretary never had any intention of abandoning the legal aid system altogether in this respect, he has only to say that he does not intend to do so now and we shall applaud that decision and expect him to support the new clause.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Under Secretary's statement was interesting because it seemed to say that the Government are beginning to think again about their express intention to remove the availability of the green form scheme to those who seek to apply for the status of refugee. If that is no longer the Government's intention, that will be broadly and warmly welcomed, not only by the Opposition but by all those outside the House who are concerned about the constitutional implication of the Home Secretary's announcement at that time.
There is an important constitutional issue which should not be forgotten. It should be the right of every person who seeks to avail himself of a remedy available to him in law to have available to him advice that is not only in fact independent but is perceived to be independent. The great problem with what the Government proposed at that time—we look forward to them announcing that they no longer propose it—is that advice from that quarter would not be perceived as being independent. It would not be perceived as being advice on which the refugee or the applicant for refugee status could safely rely.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made that clear when he referred the Secretary of State and the Minister to the fact that such people are coming from countries in which, very often, the rule of law has been abandoned and where they cannot rely on the protection of the courts or on the independence of the judiciary and the legal system. That makes it all the more important for us with our tradition of respect for the rule of law to be able to offer a service and to hold out a system that guarantees those applicants not only the fact of independent advice but the perception of independent advice. It is absolutely central to our concept of the rule of law and to all that the legal aid system has stood for. To renege on that—to appear to do so—is something that we simply cannot afford, and the House should not allow that to happen.
4.15 pm
Are we to hear from the Minister that we need not fear because, after due reflection, the Government have decided to abandon the proposal or, if not abandoned it, will ensure that the exclusive agency for advice—which particularly relates to the amendment—and/or representation can be relied on as being independent and perceived to be so?
We should be reassured on that issue because to those of us who observe such matters it appears that what is happening to UKIAS is an all-too-clear sign of the fact that when such agencies seek to behave and sound as if they are at arm's length from the Government—giving independent advice and expressing views that are not likely to find favour with the Government, of whatever political persuasion—their grants and functions are at risk—[Interruption.] It is all very well the Home Secretary

muttering into what might in other circumstances be his beard but what, in fact, are his whiskers, but the perception of the House and the general public is that UKIAS is being punished for having dared to stand up to the Government when they made the proposal that they now seem to be backing out of—to remove the right of access to the green form scheme for those who seek to apply for refugee status.
The public and House are justified in their view. The green form scheme has served this country well, as it has those who seek to utilise our legal system. It would be a tragedy if it were to be denied any groups.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): rose

Mr. Boateng: I hope that the Home Secretary is rising to assure us that that was never his intention and is not now his proposal. If it will assist him if I continue speaking a little longer, I shall happily do so.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman earlier claimed that it was the public perception that the Government would cease to fund UKIAS because that organisation did not agree with Government policy. May I make it absolutely clear that it has not been the policy of this Government or any previous Government to undermine the independence of UKIAS and the advice that it gives. All those who have been connected with UKIAS during the past few months will have regretted what has happened to it and its internal difficulties.

Mr. Winnick: indicated assent.

Mr. Baker: I see that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who was formerly chairman of UKIAS, is nodding and I am sure that his view is shared by all hon. Members.
The meeting yesterday of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department with UKIAS was positive. It has been alleged that the proposals are politically motivated, but that is not so. I want to make it absolutely clear that the proposals that the Government put to UKIAS yesterday were fully supported by the United Nations convention on refugees. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will shortly tell the House about those proposals.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate is useful and should prompt the Minister to give an early report on the state of play of the continuing discussions that he has had with those concerned about the provision of advice and the representation of asylum seekers. It is a late stage in the Bill's proceedings for us to be left in such doubt about the direction of the Government's thinking.
Some would say that it would be more appropriate not to proceed with primary legislation—changing the law so fundamentally, making a change of such substance—until the Government had a clear idea of the procedures that should be built in for the purpose of protecting applicants from the patently oppressive provisions that the Bill encapsulates. However, that is not the way in which the Government proceed. At least, it is not the way in which the Home Office proceeds. The Home Office announces its conclusions and then proceeds to rewrite them during the passage of legislation—and this is no exception.
What has happened can be explained in terms of the Government's uncertainty about the timing of the election. The initial announcements in July had more to do with the possibility of an imminent autumn election than with the need to bring forward precise legislative proposals. Indeed, when the next phase unfolded, an autumn election—a November election—was still an option, but that, too, was snatched away from the Government. No doubt they hoped that answers to the awkward questions raised by Members on both sides of the House would not need to be given before completion of the earlier stages of the Bill. This is a case study on how not to legislate. Indeed, the Home Office could provide us with many examples.
With regard to the substance of the proposal of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Government have a duty to give Parliament full answers to all the questions—questions raised in the Standing Committee and at other stages of the Bill—about the advice that will be available. There will not be an opportunity today to discuss in detail a subject that was debated very fully in Committee. I refer to the representation, advice and care that would be available to children coming into the country. The new clause refers to the age of those seeking such help, and it gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to say what particular consideration he has given to the representations made by the Save the Children Fund, the Children's Legal Centre and many other organisations that are concerned about the relatively small number of minors who come in without assistance, very often having been put on international transport by terrified parents anxious to get them out of danger.
There have been reports—one of them appeared in The Independent today—of an Ethiopian child whose mother was seeking to avoid his conscription to fight against the Eritrean rebels. No doubt the case has been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State. These are real cases. They give rise to great anxiety, and they merit special and separate Government consideration for vulnerable children—the people whom, above all, this House would wish to protect.
I hope that the Minister will be in a position to announce, in response to this debate, the conclusion of the Lord Chancellor following his announcement about the green form. That proposal has certainly met with uniform hostility from all those in this country concerned with the rule of law and with ensuring that the due process of law is followed.
The ability to obtain advice from professional advisers, or such advisers as the person in need of advice wishes, is an integral part of our judicial system and is essential if we are not to have a legal system very different from that which we have enjoyed in the past.
The Lord Chancellor has certainly been deeply concerned about the extent of increased funding required for legal aid, and quite separate proposals on that subject have been considered by the House on one or two occasions. As a result of the Government's decision, the Lord Chancellor has recently become responsible for the operation of these matters in the magistrates courts, and that may have opened his eyes to difficulties that have hitherto rested with the Home Office.
Great though the difficulties flowing from the expanded legal aid fund are, however, we must not allow the Government to whittle away the long-established rights of

vulnerable people coming to our shores. We in this country have a record of concern that must not be diminished in the eyes of those who observe our affairs.
I warmly welcome the new clause and I hope that the Government will use the debate to explain in full where we stand before we proceed any further with the Bill.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I must admit that I am attracted by the part of the new clause that says that the proposed report
shall describe the arrangements made for ensuring that access to advisers and representatives of an applicant's choice is not hindered nor inhibited by the applicant's … age".
Between Christmas and the new year, three unaccompanied Somali children arrived in my constituency. My local social services department has some experience of dealing with both unaccompanied children and Somalis. Somalis make up more than a third of the 89 refugee families, with 216 children, who have recently arrived in Bromley.
The social services department will be hard pressed, however, to find accommodation and adequate medical support for the children. Most of the unaccompanied children who arrive have substantial medical problems which are difficult to diagnose, and distinct linguistic problems arise in their dealings with doctors. There will also be considerable problems in fitting the children into our education system. They have little idea of how to cope with schools and no knowledge of the English language.
While trying to cope with those problems, my social services department cannot possibly hope to provide the children with sensible advice about asylum-seeking procedures. It is important that asylum-seeking children should be assigned special guardians to look after their special needs. If we did that, we would merely be following in the footsteps of our Community partners.
In Denmark, France, Germany, Holland and Italy, unaccompanied refugee children are already allocated a special person who is responsible for looking after their interests, both in terms of care and of asylum procedure. In several Community countries, such as Denmark, France and Holland, all the care and advice expenses of unaccompanied asylum seekers are paid by central Government. In France and Germany, there are special procedures for ensuring that a child's case is dealt with quickly.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say something about the problem of advice for unaccompanied children. Sadly, the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. We should follow our Community partners in assigning special advisers to unaccompanied children who arrive on our shores.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, I think, agreed that the letter from the Under-Secretary of State to UKIAS of 20 January, being a document under discussion in this debate and an official Government document, should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons for general observation. That letter is one of a series of letters between the Minister and UKIAS. Do you agree that the entire series should be in the Library for hon. Members' perusal? I am particularly concerned about a letter of 7 October, which actually states in terms that,


unless UKIAS accepts the Government's policy, its grant will be withdrawn, which is exactly the threat that the Home Secretary has denied was ever made.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member is putting words in my mouth. I did not make that ruling at all. It is not a state paper; it is correspondence. It has never been the rule for correspondence to be placed in the Library. We have yet to hear from the Under-Secretary of State exactly what the letter contains.

Mr. Winnick: It would have been much better, of course, if we had seen the correspondence over UKIAS, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, or if we had had a statement; hence my strong support for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). If, at the outset, we had had a statement about precisely what the Government intend to do about the funding of UKIAS and the future arrangements of that organisation, we would have been in a better position to debate the subject.
That organisation, with which I was involved—I have already informed the House that I have no involvement at present—has undoubtedly undertaken excellent work since it was set up in 1970. I was very pleased when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook mentioned that he advised constituents to use the Birmingham office. As my constituency is in the west midlands, I follow the same course. I have had no complaint—none whatsoever —about the work that has been undertaken by the Birmingham office of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
UKIAS was started when the appeal system was introduced on 1 July 1970. Some people have queried whether the organisation is independent. They have asked, "If the organisation is funded by the Government, how can it argue against the Government decisions?" There is no dilemma of course. Other organisations are funded by the Government—citizens advice bureaux, for example. No one questions the integrity of the CAB. Indeed, if there were no Government funding, it would be difficult for that organisation to exist.
The UKIAS was publicly funded and brought into operation as a result of the legislation of a Labour Government and continued by a Conservative Government, but its independence is not questioned, certainly not by Opposition Members. As I have often said, if one questions its independence, one has only to go to a hearing and listen to the UKIAS representative argue the case against the Home Office, and let me know whether the organisation is independent.
So we are not therefore querying the independence of the organisation. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook had any doubts at all, he would hardly advise his constituents to go to the Birmingham office of the UKIAS and nor would I. My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear and has taken the opportunity today to praise the integrity of the organisation.
As has been rightly argued by Labour Members, however, if UKIAS is the sole agency and if legal aid is abolished in such cases, people could come to a different conclusion. If people are forced to use UKIAS because there is no alternative, because they have not the financial

means, the organisation may well be described as acting on behalf of the Government, however unfair that accusation may be.
This is an important point and it is why, in my view quite rightly, the executive of UKIAS, despite all the internal differences and the rest, unanimously came to the view that it was wrong to take on the work as a sole agency: it believed that, if it so did, its integrity and independence would be compromised.
The crux of the matter in new clause 2 is in the words
representation from advisers and representatives of their choice".
There is no doubt in my mind that, in the large majority of cases in which refugee asylum is being dealt with and in which appeals are to be heard or advice sought on the possibility of making an appeal, UKIAS would be used. But there is a difference between a large majority of people rightly choosing to use UKIAS and a situation in which they had simply no alternative. The statement of the Home Secretary to the House earlier certainly gave the impression that UKIAS would be the sole agency, and that is what we really object to. I hope that the point will be clearly established today that legal aid will be available for people if they so wish.
If the refugee section of UKIAS is not to remain in existence—I have not seen the letter but, as I said earlier, it would have been much better if we knew precisely where we were on this issue—and if there is to be a successor to UKIAS for refugee work, the House is entitled to know what will be the make-up of the organisation, what will be the management body, and what will be its relationship in its fund-raising role with the Government. These are important questions. The reason why UKIAS has had the confidence of most people over nearly 22 years is that everyone has known the position. There has been no secret. It has been funded by the Government—that was made clear from the beginning—and its make-up and internal decision-making has been, as it must be, a matter for the organisation itself.
I deplore some of the disagreements which have arisen in UKIAS. It is not unique: we even have disagreements, so I am told, in political parties from time to time. I deeply regret that some of these differences have come to the fore, and I wish that they could have been avoided. However, that is no reason—I hope that the Home Secretary is listening to my viewpoint—why the organisation should be discontinued. The Home Secretary is nodding.
If we agree that excellent work is being undertaken and that the staff are dedicated people who believe in the importance of their work and who feel an obligation to their clients—otherwise they should not be doing the job in the first place—it would be unfortunate if, because of some internal differences, which I hope will be cleared up—I understand that there is to be a meeting of UKIAS on Wednesday—the Home Secretary came to the view that the organisation itself, leaving aside the refugee section, should be dismantled. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear to the House today what he has in mind.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to comment on the activities of some of the charities that are concerned with assisting those who are applicants for refugee status. He may have noticed a recent report in the News of the World—[Laughter.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: An authoritative source. [Laughter.]

Mr. Tebbit: Opposition Front-Bench Members may laugh, but they should take such matters more seriously.
The article related to a gentleman who, in one of his guises, was claiming to be one of my constituents. His name was Mr. Avedila. He had not only an address in my constituency, but 14 other addresses. So far, it has been discovered that he has a total of 15 identities. In each of those identities, he was claiming the maximum benefits available. It appears that, apart from housing benefit amounting to about £400 per week, he was netting some £790 per week in other benefits—in 15 different names. I have conducted some investigations and have found that it is absurdly easy to do that—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Apart from his anxiety to catch television prime time—perhaps it was an appointment in a television studio that prevented the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) from attending the earlier part of the debate what on earth has his contribution to do with the new clause? If I am correct in thinking that his comments are out of order, am I also correct in thinking that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will shortly advise the right hon. Gentleman that he is out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must be very careful, but I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is using a particular case to illustrate a general point. So far, I have heard nothing that is out of order.

Mr. Tebbit: Having been a Member of the House for 22 years, I am certain that, if the Chair believed that an hon. Member was out of order, the Chair would say so before being advised in general by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). If you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to advise the hon. Gentleman in a by-line that I have recently returned from my constituency of Chingford, and that that is what delayed me and prevented me from being present earlier.
My specific point relates to an organisation that is called the British Refugee Council which I understand is involved in these matters. Mr. Avedila had 15 letters from the British Refugee Council, all of which held his photograph, in 15 different names. In what I imagine is a standard form, each of those letters states:
This is to introduce the above-named refugee who has applied to the Home Office for political asylum. In the meantime we would be grateful if you would consider this letter as evidence of our client's identity"—
all 15 of them.
It seems extraordinarily easy to fool both the authorities and the British Refugee Council, because I am sure that that body was being fooled and was not conniving in such a dishonest trick.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As I do not know the cases to which my right hon. Friend is referring, I am not necessarily sure that the organisations were conned. The letters may be forgeries. I am afraid that we come across forgeries in our police and detection work, and that those letters may be examples of it.

Mr. Tebbit: In that case, I must ask my hon. Friend whether he will investigate whether those letters were forgeries—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Home

Secretary is as capable of reading the newspapers as I am. I should like him to look into this matter and to tell me what steps he is taking to avoid such a matter recurring.

Mr. David Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me, as a member of the British Refugee Council, that that most honourable organisation would never connive in any form of illegal activity? Clearly, therefore, there may well have been a forgery, but what has happened would certainly not have been with the knowledge of the British Refugee Council.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to hear that from my hon. Friend. However, what has happened suggests that it is all too easy to make forgeries and to fool the authorities. Perhaps my right hon. Friends could do something to improve the standard of checking such records.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: I think that I can do without the hon. Gentleman's help.
As the House knows, it is extremely easy to obtain false documentation from the authorities. It is extremely easy to obtain false passports or even to have genuine passports issued to people who do not exist.

Mr. Winnick: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Keith Vaz: Give it to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tebbit: The Home Secretary is aware of these matters—

Mr. Winnick: Speak to the Chair.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to hear the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) give his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) the advice that he should speak to the Chair—[Interruption.] Well, what is clearly extremely unwelcome to Opposition Members is the fact that there is a large-scale racket, of which Mr. Avedila is but one example of a so-called refugee who seeks to claim that status.

Mr. Vaz: rose

Mr. Tebbit: No, thank you.
If Opposition Members would like me to elaborate at greater length, I could tell them the story of Mr. Williams, who was recently deported. He had been here illegally for about 18 months, during which time he had found gainful employment in the Department of Employment as an employment adjudication officer. In that role, he frequently adjudicated upon his own claims. He then went round at the weekends to collect his benefits from his accommodation addresses, many of which are quite well known. Those are matters about which my right hon. and hon. Friends should be—and, I know, are—concerned.

Mr. Corbyn: First, I must apologise to the House for not being present in the Chamber for some of the earlier speeches. Unfortunately, however, I did hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Given that he served in Cabinet for many years, I should have thought that he would be more objective and would not simply take as his evidence two cases from the front page of the News of the World. The right hon. Gentleman


cannot even be bothered to pass on his information to the Home Office or the police, yet he extrapolates from that that there is a massive amount of fraud and a refugee and immigration racket.
For one moment, when the right hon. Gentleman first rose to speak, and given that he will not be standing at the next election, I thought that Daniel had come to judgment and that the right hon. Gentleman was going to show some concern for those who seek asylum in this country and who have fled from oppressive regimes that were supported by the Government of which he was happily a Cabinet member for so many years. Those people have suffered torture and all sorts of indignities and have missing family members.
However, the right hon. Gentleman chose instead to use the race card, which his party is determined to play in the run-up to the election, by extrapolating from those two cases that there is massive fraud in matters relating to refugees, thereby smearing the character of all those who seek asylum in this country, without any thought of the conditions from which they have come.
I might have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would draw the attention of the House to his views on the two new clauses, but I do not recall him even mentioning them. Perhaps he has not read them. Indeed, he does not appear to have a copy of them with him. That seems a strangely ill-prepared way to attend such a debate—without a copy of the Bill or of the Hansard of the Standing Committee, with Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments or copies of those amendments.

Mr. Madden: The right hon. Gentleman has the News of the World.

Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman came with a crucial piece of information—the front page of the News of the World. We all know where he gets his information.
These new clauses are crucial ones about the right to independent legal advice. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Chingford, who believes, apparently, in freedom of choice in all matters, would have supported the right of freedom to choose independent legal advice. But he does not do that; instead, he supports the Government's curtailment of that right. He supports the curtailment, apparently, of green-form advice, which I believe is largely motivated by the embarrassment which the Government have suffered from a number of very successful cases that have been mounted against Home Office decisions by law centres and legal aid practices throughout the country. That, I believe, is the motive behind what they are doing.
I believe that an important part of the first of the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is the independence of interpreters. While I am not denigrating individual interpreters working for the immigration service or the Home Office, many of whom work extremely hard and do a very good job, it is essential that those seeking political asylum have an absolute guarantee that the person doing the translating is independent, is fully aware of the importance of an asylum application, is fully familiar with the cases and is somebody whose background has been inquired into to make sure that he or

she is not in a position to infiltrate the immigration service and pass information back to the regime from which the individual may be fleeing, thus putting their family at risk.
These are extremely serious matters. Anyone seeking political asylum is taking a major step. People arriving in this country for such a purpose have to go through a long interview procedure to process their claims. While that is being done, their families at home, in Zaire, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, or wherever it may be, are in great danger if the authorities in those countries find out that an asylum application has been made in Europe or anywhere else. We need to know that all those who are taken on as interpreters by the Home Office are responsible people and will not pass back that kind of information.
I heard what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) said and I share his disappointment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that the amendments relating to the rights of the child have not been selected. When a child arrives in this country unaccompanied and seeking political asylum—in some cases, it is extremely obvious why they are seeking political asylum—it is very important that the child is treated properly, as any homeless or friendless child should be treated. We discussed these matters at some length in Committee.
I have had experience of children arriving in this country unaccompanied from Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea. They are desperately sad cases. They have come from a war-ravaged country where their parents or friends have thought the best thing to do is to get them on a plane to some safer place. That is not an unreasonable thing to do when one considers the circumstances in which they might be living. They turn up on church doorsteps in inner London hoping that the Church will be able to help them out in some way. Then there is a rather unseemly scramble, with London social services authorities passing the children from one place to another until somebody finally accepts our responsibilities under the Children Act 1989.
What we were looking for in Committee, and what the children's legal aid centre was looking for, was a declaration that the Government's signature to the United Nation convention on the rights of the child would be enshrined in the spirit of law in this country and that there would be independent panels that could look after the welfare of the children to ensure that their welfare was the primary consideration. That surely ought to be what we are discussing today.
These two new clauses are important, and the Government should be able to accept them, because they would ensure a right to independent legal advice and a choice of that advice. I am not condemning the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service or the people who work in it. I am saying that, as an organisation, it cannot cope with the work it has to do at the present time. No organisation could expand as quickly as the new organisation that is to be set up is apparently expected to expand to take on all this work.
I know from first-hand experience about the excellent work that is done by a number of legal aid practices and law centres in supporting asylum applicants. It could well be that the right hon. Member for Chingford and others are so offended by the success of those organisations and the ability of those individuals that they wish to curtail the right of people to seek that independent legal advice. That


seems to me to be completely wrong. We should be supporting the right to seek independent legal advice in support of an asylum application.
Nobody who seeks political asylum does it lightly. It is a very serious step to take, with implications for the individual, his family and the rest of his life. It is not something that people easily embark upon. I think it is time that the House took the issue seriously and guaranteed the right to independent advice.

Mr. Ashby: I do not support the new clause, but I want to bring one aspect of it to my right hon. Friend's attention. It is the need, when an application for asylum is being considered by the special adjudicator, for a second interpreter. Denmark, which I visited to explore this very subject, uses this process. The Danes have made it quite clear—and I accept the arguments and the evidence that they have produced—that a second interpreter is absolutely necessary in the case of an application for leave.
The application for leave is a much more beneficial ground than most other countries in Europe give; it is a much freer ground. In this respect, we are much more generous in this country. But it is really important that there should be another interview with another interpreter, and that it should be before the adjudicator in the application for leave. I see my right hon. Friend shaking his head, but I hope that he will take into account what I have said.

Mr. Vaz: I, too, wish to apologise to the House for not having been present at the start of this debate. I was attending elsewhere to an immigration problem which was based on a misunderstanding between the Home Office and the Foreign Office. That is why I had to spend the last half an hour intervening and telephoning both Departments to try to deal with the problem.
I want first to say something nice about the Under-Secretary of State and, on the record, to thank him for his decision in the case of Younis Patel, who was in prison in Leicester for a number of months. The case was reviewed by the Minister and Mr. Patel was allowed to stay. That is the only nice thing that I propose to say about the hon. Gentleman. That is the only case of the thousands of cases that I have raised with him to which he has said yes.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Not true.

Mr. Vaz: Well, perhaps we can count them on the fingers of one hand.
I want to comment briefly on the Government's proposals and to support wholeheartedly the new clauses and amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
I believe that it is a fundamental principle that people should have access to independent legal advice. I make no mention of the crisis with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, except to say this. I have referred many immigration cases to that organisation. I believe that until very recently it operated perfectly properly. I have no great attachment to solicitors earning large sums of money dealing with immigration cases. I believe that there are many examples of people having to pay large sums to solicitors who are not experienced in immigration matters to deal with such matters. But until we have a system that allows properly resourced public

access to organisations such as UKIAS, we cannot have a system that precludes people from seeking independent legal advice from private firms of solicitors.
The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) may find this surprising, but I deplore the fact that some people who work in counselling services set up those services specifically to rip off people. That is utterly deplorable. If the right hon. Member has the evidence, he should place it before the Home Secretary, the police and other appropriate authorities rather than come here, in the time off that he has from his interviews on Sky, to make wild accusations about everyone involved in immigration matters.

Mr. Winnick: Does not my hon. Friend consider it surprising that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who always wants to lecture us about the rule of law although we certainly need no lectures about it from him, comes to the House with, I think, two cases where crookedness was involved? Instead of taking the cases to the police, as he should have done and as any other hon. Member would have done, and certainly to the Home Office Minister, he found it more appropriate to come to the House and read from The News of the World to get as much publicity for himself as he could.

5 pm

Mr. Vaz: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Photocopies or even originals of the News of the World, if they remain from last Sunday, are no substitute for evidence being placed before the Home Secretary so that appropriate action could be taken.
Hon. Members who are present all have a constituency interest in immigration. We know from our weekly surgeries the amount of work that immigration problems generate. In many respects we act in the shoes of solicitors and legal advisers because we have gained great experience in dealing with these matters. Rather than refer them to other people, I find myself, as I am sure my colleagues do too, making the basic applications for citizens who come to me in order to save them time, effort and money.

Mr. Ashby: Has not my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made a powerful case for the use of fingerprints under clause 2? Was not that the main thrust of his observations? There is a very powerful case when a body like the British Refugee Council could be fooled. Is not the hon. Gentleman concerned that the true asylum seeker should be protected so that he is free to make his claim for asylum unhindered by the illegal actions of others who misuse the process?

Mr. Vaz: We are all here to support genuine asylum seekers; that is why we tabled the new clauses. If the new clauses are accepted, we will make sure that genuine asylum seekers will be treated decently and will have access to proper independent legal advice.
Before I was elected to the House, I worked as a solicitor in a law centre in Leicester where I dealt with many immigration cases. Because of my constituency, since election I have continued to deal with them. The anxiety, hardship and distress suffered by people as they wait for decisions from the Home Office are obvious to anyone. We feel very strongly that people should have access to solicitors who have knowledge of immigration


law, and who can protect people by explaining the difficult legislation and regulations dealing with immigration policy.
Over the past 12 years immigration policy developed by the Government has become more restrictive and hurts many people. When the Government introduce complicated legislation, it is only right that people should have access to those with basic information about it. UKIAS or another body should be developed on a national basis, with branches in all parts of the country. Certainly I should like to see a branch in Leicester. I do not see why my constituents should have to go to Birmingham or elsewhere to get effective legal advice. If we had such a network, we would be able to withdraw the support which we currently give to private practitioners, but the Minister knows that we cannot do so at this stage because there is no body of effective legal advice and opinion to benefit people.
I make no secret of the fact that we should have a public legal system in Britain, funded by central Government through law centres. Under that system, which we will begin to have under the Labour Government, we would not have to worry about dispensing public funds to private solicitors.
As to interpreters, I do not speak every language of the Indian sub-continent. I need interpreters in my surgery who can speak Punjabi, Urdu and Gujarati, otherwise I cannot understand fully what my constituents are saying when they have complicated immigration problems. It is only right that we should put forward modest proposals to ensure that there is access to interpreters. I understand that even the The People has started to produce certain pages in Urdu. If that newspaper recognises the importance of doing so, Parliament should recognise its importance and it should be enshrined in the legislation.
I hope that the Minister will realise that we have made sensible suggestions. They would ease his load by giving people access to proper and effective legal advice. If they had access to interpreters, it would enable his Department speedily to deal with immigration cases.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I should like to intervene only for a moment because I have an important constituency interest in that Gatwick, a major international airport, is within my constituency.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) about the anguish and anxiety caused to people by immigration problems. Inevitably it takes a great deal of time to go into these cases. It is right that they should he dealt with in a humane and honourable manner. In my view, the steps that the Government have taken, and are proposing to take, will in no way diminish the handling of the cases; indeed, I hope that they will speed it up and make it more effective and efficient.
May I pay a tribute to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), from whom I have always had the greatest courtesy and the most enormous amount of help in dealing with constituency cases. He takes great trouble over a seemingly endless stream of difficulties. I am grateful to him. I do not recognise in what the hon. Member for Leicester, East said about my hon. Friend any vestige of truth. My hon. Friend has been a staunch ally in trying to resolve difficulties as they have arisen for my constituents.
I should like also to pay tribute to the work of UKIAS at Gatwick. I have absolutely no doubt about its independence. I understand that the statistics show that UKIAS ranks ahead of other people in its success rate at tribunals—not that that is necessarily a good or bad indication, but it is fact. The House need have no anxiety about the independence of UKIAS. I understand the concern that people may feel about the proposed change, but I am content that it should go thus.
As to the unfair and entirely predictable venom that was poured on the head of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) a moment ago, it is increasingly impossible to have a sensible talk about sensitive matters without such abuse. My right hon. Friend was correct and was entitled to raise the case that he did in the House just now. We all saw it in the newspaper and there is great public concern. Many constituents write to me regularly, expressing themselves strongly and loudly of the opinion, or in some cases the fact, that there has been serious abuse of the immigration laws. We all know that it goes on.
All of us who have immigrant populations in our constituencies have become more adept at identifying dodgy lobbying. Over the last nine years, as I have dealt more and more with these matters, I have gained more experience. My right hon. Friend was right to air on the Floor of the House a matter which, however specific—no doubt it is being looked into by the authorities and by the police—

Mr. Vaz: Is it?

Mr. Soames: I am sure that it is.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It enables me to say that I was accused of racism by Labour Members although I had not mentioned the race of the individuals in the two cases to which I referred.

Mr. Vaz: What is it?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman a little more about the two individuals, if I may, in a brief intervention. One gentleman has fled the country of his own volition, using yet another identity. The other gentleman to whom I referred, Mr. Williams, was deported some little while ago, it being cheaper to deport him than prosecute him for the gross fraud that he has perpetrated against the United Kingdom.

Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend makes his own point.
These matters, however disagreeable they may be to raise in an individual context, are discussed in the pubs in my constituency, as they are discussed and debated at the Eton College debating society or the Liverpool polytechnic. Why should they not be aired on the Floor of the House? My right hon. Friend is right to raise in front of the—

Mr. Vaz: We are merely suggesting that if the right hon. Member for Chingford has information he must place it before the appropriate authorities. That is what he should do.

Mr. Soames: As I have said, I have no doubt that, given the scale of the fraud, the matter is being investigated vigorously. I have no shadow of a doubt about that. I am


aware of cases in my constituency—of course they are rare—where the investigating authorities have gone into matters extremely carefully and at great length while being most careful to ensure that there is no publicity that would be likely to lead to prejudice one way or the other. The only point that I seek to make—

Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
I wish only to make the point that I think it wrong that Opposition Members should seek to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, who has fairly raised a matter that carries with it considerable concern in all strata of society. It is right that it should be raised on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Boateng: The objection is not that such matters are raised but to the poisonous or venomous manner in which it is done.

Mr. Soames: That is precisely the point that I am trying to make.
I have seen my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford being poisonous or venomous, but neither poison nor venom did I detect when he raised a fair, sensible and extremely important matter that needs to be debated frankly and fully on the Floor of the House without the sort of ignorant, absurd and childish platitudes that we have so recently heard.
I have had regular and extensive contact and dealings with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service as an ordinary Member who has regularly to deal with immigration matters. I am confident that when I recommend a constituent to see UKIAS he or she will be dealt with in an entirely independent and completely honourable and decent manner. I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Minister in that respect.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I start by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that asylum seekers should be guaranteed good legal advice and representation. I have considerable sympathy for what the two new clauses seek to do. Before any fluttering expectations begin to arise in the minds or breasts—I do not mind which it is—of Opposition Members, I should say that I cannot advise the House to write the two clauses into the Bill, because they deal, for example, with administrative matters such as a once-off requirement for a report to be made to Parliament—new clause 2—and the keeping of a custody record—new clause 10—that should not be set down in primary legislation. They do so—this comment applies especially to new clause 10—in language that is more absolute then justified or practical. For example, new clause 10 provides an asylum seeker with the entitlement
to consult a solicitor or advisor of his choice privately at any time.
That would be unexceptionable if "at any time" were changed to "any reasonable time". The right of the asylum seeker to be informed
in the language of his choice
is too sweeping, though I accept the general direction of that which is sought. There are some languages that require interpreters to which we do not have ready access,

though we always make every effort to ensure that we find an interpreter who speaks the applicant's language or at least one in which he or she is comfortable.
I have given some of the prosaic reasons why the new clauses should not become part of the Bill—

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way on the provision of interpreters?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall not give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about that. I shall take up the matter more fully later in my remarks.

Mr. John Frase: The Minister has referred to what he described as administrative matters that he thinks are not amenable to legislation. He has said that he is in agreement, but with some reservations, about the keeping of custody records and access to a solicitor of the applicant's choice. Will he give an undertaking that he will make administrative arrangements that will equally well put into effect the entitlements that we seek in new clause 10?

Mr. Lloyd: I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking—it is of the sort that I gave him in Committee—that I believe that many things should be done with the extra resources that we shall have, and in the context of administrative matters the care of records is relevant. We shall be able to undertake that task more fully and in a better manner in future. It is a matter of priorities. I undertake to examine all these matters to see what we might do. I cannot say that in an administrative context we shall take up every item that appears in the new clauses, at least not in the way that is implied. I am not against the general tenor of that which is sought.
I have set out some of the reasons why the new clauses should not become part of the Bill and now I shall say something about general intention. It is right that, for example, the House should be well informed of the arrangements for advice and representation. It is open to the House to ask for reports, and it can pose questions at any time. I believe that I am being asked a question on my meeting yesterday with the UKIAS executive council, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members have tabled questions. It is my intention to keep hon. Members informed of the temporary arrangements that will be made for the UKIAS refugee unit. This will be done by the best and most helpful means that are available to us, so that the House is kept informed at each stage. I shall deal with that matter more fully in my later remarks.
I look to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when I say that I am not clear about the precise intention that lies behind the phrase in new clause 2, which refers to
satisfactory access to advice and representation"—
this is for applicants—
from advisers and representatives of their choice".
Of course applicants may continue to have advice and representation of their choice; we place no limit on either. The present arrangements for representations are as they were under the Labour Government, which means that publicly funded representation, as opposed to advice, is available only from the UKIAS. Does new clause 2 envisage that legal aid will be extended to representation before the special appellate system takes effect? That would be a fundamental change from the practice of Labour Governments of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a member.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not know why the Minister is making such heavy weather of this matter. I suspect that he is doing so because he believed what the Home Secretary said when he intervened. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on 2 July included the following two sentences:
At present advice and assistance but not representation are available to those whose means qualify them under the legal aid green form scheme. We propose that in future advice and assistance, and where necessary representation before the immigrant appellate authority, should instead be provided by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service."— [Official Report, 2 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 166-67.]
That can mean only that UKIAS was to be made the exclusive provider of legal advice. We are opposed to that. We wish to return to the scheme which was operated and was intended to operate until the Home Secretary made his statement on 2 July.

Mr. Lloyd: The purpose of my question was to extract from the right hon. Gentleman what he thought was meant not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department but the new clause. When I intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech he replied in such confusion that I thought it best to give him time to reflect, and to ask my question again later. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to abandon the arrangement with which Labour was content when it was last in power? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can answer that now. Is he saying that free representation—as opposed to advice—paid for out of public funds would continue to be a monopoly of UKIAS or some other similar organisation?
Alternatively, is the right hon. Gentleman implying—as I thought that he was in some of his remarks—that legal aid would be generally available to those appearing before adjudicators or tribunals, and that they could secure representation from any part of the legal profession?

Mr. Hattersley: I was not arguing—and never have argued—for the hypothesis that the Minister irrelevantly introduces. I want to see the status quo—the preservation of the system that the Home Secretary said on 2 July that he intended to abandon. I understood from the Home Secretary's intervention that the total abandonment of the green form scheme was never in the Home Secretary's mind. There is confusion throughout the House about the Under-Secretary's intentions. Does he or does he not propose to abandon the green form scheme totally and completely?

Mr. Lloyd: I am trying to tease from the right hon. Gentleman what he thinks is the meaning of the new clause that he invites the House to adopt. I understand that it would leave the situation exactly as it is now, with green form advice available from a legal practitioner or free from UKIAS—but with representation confined only to UKIAS or any successor body.
As to the Government's position on the green form scheme, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that instead of an arrangement unique to the immigration appellate system, whereby public funds finance two sources of free advice—UKIAS and green form—they were considering concentrating the provision of free advice through UKIAS, so that only that organisation would be publicly funded to give advice.
My noble and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend made it clear that the green form scheme would not be

withdrawn until a full, free, prompt, and convenient form of professional advice was available to every asylum seeker. They made it clear also, as they had to do because of the rules by which we work, that no such change could be put into effect without formal consultation and the consent of both Houses. Parliament will decide. The right hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to speak his mind and to record his vote if and when my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor brings forward considered proposals on the green form scheme. Until then, green form professional advice will continue to be available.

Mr. Hattersley: It would be churlish of me not to say how much I welcome that statement, and how much I rejoice in the fact that to add to the four climbdowns that I announced at 4 o'clock, there is a fifth—the abandonment of the proposal announced by the Home Secretary in column 167 of Hansard on 2 July.

Mr. Lloyd: That proposal is still under serious consideration. Laughter.] We would not make such a large change without formal consultation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook may laugh. That is how he may see himself operating as Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor, but it is not how this Government's Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor operate. As to the climbdowns to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, they merely reflect the Government's success in putting in writing—and I agree that this was needed in some cases—the Government's intentions, using words that even the right hon. Gentleman could understand.
The timing of yesterday's meeting with UKIAS was not occasioned by either the imminent general election, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), or today's Report stage of the Bill. Because UKIAS's general council will meet tomorrow, I thought that it would be fairer to speak to its executive in advance so that it could report back, rather than have to wait until after tomorrow's general council meeting.
As the House knows—because I have said this before—whatever may be the difficulties, to use the word chosen by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), confronting UKIAS's general council and executive, its full-time staff give excellent and professional advice and representation. However, I have long thought that UKIAS's constitution does not sufficiently bring in the various bodies and professional groups concerned with asylum, effectively rule out conflicting pecuniary interests, or satisfactorily delegate its day-to-day running to its very good, professional, full-time management in the way that a well-run organisation in receipt of public funds ought to do.
For more than a year my officials, and latterly myself, and most particularly the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—whose senior representative attended yesterday's meeting and shares my concerns and objectives—urged on UKIAS the need to introduce constitutional changes to remove the shortcomings that I described and to meet many of the outside criticisms to which UKIAS is subjected.
It is plain that, although there was, and is, wide acceptance of the need for reform within UKIAS, it was too slow in producing results. As I said, we have been talking to UKIAS about the need for reform for more than


a year. I therefore told the organisations's executive that as the refugee section will need to expand to meet the requirements of the new appellate procedure and the increase in asylum applications, which will press upon UKIAS with the new appeal provisions that the Bill introduces, I did not believe it right to permit UKIAS to have large additional funds without the desired constitutional changes being in place.
Accordingly, I gave UKIAS notice that its refugee section would be temporarily detached, to enable its expansion for the time being under the guidance of an independent body to be established in consultation with the UNHCR. I also gave UKIAS three months to introduce the necessary constitutional changes or face the withdrawal of the rest of its grant. I hope that will not be necessary, and that UKIAS will implement the changes needed in a manner that it will be possible to reunite it with its refugee unit. However, the Government will want to be sure that the reformed organisation has the confidence of not only the Home Office but the UNHCR and the various respected bodies active in asylum and general immigration.
I am not acting to rescue a substandard, representational service on which my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sought to place too much reliance earlier this year. I am most emphatically not doing that. I am certainly not acting—as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) suggests—to make the refugee unit more politically amenable. Even if we were of that mind, the constitutional changes for which we are calling would make that much more difficult.
I should be interested to know whether Labour Members quarrel with any of the three constitutional principles that I indicated. Certainly the UNHCR believes that they are necessary—particularly for an organisation that will inevitably play a much enhanced role as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Fraser: The constitutional principle that we uphold—a principle enshrined in many declarations of human rights—is that people in difficulty should be given the advice of their choice.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman giggled when I asked him about representation earlier. Advice and representation will, of course, go together: when a representative appears before an adjudicator or a tribunal, he will make the case in the way that he and his client have agreed is the most sensible. The distinction that the hon. Gentleman makes between advice and representation is not as real as he suggests. Certainly it is not a distinction of principle; it emanates from the practice of the past 24 years. It is because that practice has continued for so long that the very conservative party—conservative with a small "c"—that constitutes the official Opposition is happy with it, and will not question it.

Mr. Boateng: Surely the Minister recognises that at the heart of the green form system is precisely that distinction between advice and representation. The green form system does not cover representation; it is linked specifically with the issue of advice, which is recognised as being entirely

distinct and separate from the issue of representation. To confuse the two, as the Minister is doing, is to mislead the House, and to do his own case no service at all.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course representation and advice are different, but they are not as easily separated as the hon. Gentleman implies. I am not speaking to a Bill that would make such changes; I am speaking to a Bill which leaves matters as they are now. I am, however, making an administrative change in the way in which grant is paid to the refugee section, to protect it. I am seeking to safeguard the high quality of UKIAS's representation—especially in regard to asylum applicants—and to enable the refugee section to expand speedily and efficiently. I want it to be able to meet the demands of additional representation that the Bill will confer on it, with the confidence of those who work in the field.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has described the hived-off refugee section as desirably independent. How does he propose to ensure that it is so independent of the Government that it is a reliable body in the eyes of those who seek advice?

Mr. Lloyd: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what I hope will prove to be temporary arrangements. We are consulting the UNHCR closely, and we shall rely heavily on its advice and recommendations: indeed, the UNHCR contributes funds to the refugee unit. It wanted the changes, and we shall not reach conclusions with which it is not happy. I hope that we shall be able to introduce a temporary arrangement that will include the contribution of a range of representatives or individuals who are knowledgeable about the whole system of asylum and immigration, and who will inspire confidence. I thought it right, however, to tell the executive of UKIAS what the Government intended before the UNHCR approached individuals and sensible discussion began.
A number of points have been raised this evening. One concerned the letter that I sent to the chairman of UKIAS. I should be happy for it to be placed in the Library, although I should like to ask the chairman whether he has any objection. I do not see why he should—it merely confirms a meeting—but I feel that I owe him that small courtesy. I have no reason to believe that his agreement will not be forthcoming.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland mentioned timing. I hope that I have made it clear that the Bill does not owe itself to an approaching general election. The changes that I require UKIAS to make in its constitution have nothing to do with that; what they have to do with is the imminence of the large amount of extra money that is to be devoted to the expansion of the refugee unit.
The hon. Gentleman drew my attention to a report in The Independent about an Ethiopian boy. I have only just seen that report, and I do not know the background, so I shall make only two observations. It appears that the boy's mother feared that he would be conscripted into the Ethiopian army, so the report obviously dates from some time ago. It is said that the boy was found wandering outside the airport. Certainly he did not say when he arrived that he was seeking asylum; if he was entering the country legitimately—even if he did not mention asylum—he would have needed a visa, as well as an Ethiopian exit visa. That requirement certainly operated then, and I believe that it still does.
I shall need to examine the case further, but it appears to be one of those cases in which a child is brought in by someone, and directed to introduce himself to some
organisation. The rule clearly states—and I believe that our immigration officers implement it—that if an unaccompanied child seeks asylum at an airport, that child must be put in touch with the appropriate local authority social services department with a view to his being taken into care.

Mr. Madden: Is the Minister saying that the green form system will continue indefinitely, and that a temporarily detached refugee section will be established? I may not be the only hon. Member who is confused about this. Are we to assume that that body alone will be able to provide representation for political asylum seekers?
As each hour passes, it becomes clearer that a statement should have been made before the Bill reached this stage. I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would consider accepting a motion for the adjournment of the Report stage to enable the Government to get their act together. They need time to make all the temporary arrangements, engage in all the necessary consultations and reach all the decisions that so vitally affect men and women who seek political asylum because they are fleeing violence and persecution. Surely this is a very shabby way in which to respond to the faith that those people have placed in us.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully, he would know the answers to his questions. I believe, however, that my response to a later question will clarify the matter further.
As I have said, representation will continue to be available, at public expense, and will be available only through UKIAS or through the detached refugee unit. I have made it crystal clear that the green form system will continue as it is, if and until the Lord Chancellor presents proposals that will be incorporated in a formal consultation document. If, after that, he decides to make a change to the green form system, that change must come before both Houses of Parliament: the system cannot be withdrawn without the approval of Parliament as a whole.

Mr. Vaz: How long with the process take?

Mr. Lloyd: That is not a matter for me. I can only say that it is a considerable way off, because of the clear undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor that absolutely no change would be made until a comprehensive national system of good professional advice was available promptly to all asylum seekers.
That must be some way off. The circumstances in which such a proposition could be put into effect are not with us yet. I realise that the hon. Gentleman would prefer to chat about this matter rather than about the provisions of the Bill. However, it is not in the Bill and it is not proposed to be included in the Bill. It would have to come before the House in another measure.

Mr. Soames: Before the intervention by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) my hon. Friend referred to the care that local authorities provide for children who arrive here in this distressing situation. May I ask him to listen carefully to the representations of the West Sussex county council? Gatwick airport is situated

within its boundaries. The county council experiences great difficulty over the care of these children, at enormous additional expense, for which it is not recompensed. Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the recommendations that the county council has already made?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall always consider carefully what those who are involved have to say, but my hon. Friend ought to direct any representations that he wishes to make on behalf of his county council to the Department of Health, which is the sponsoring body in this case. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is very much concerned about this subject.

Mr. Corbyn: May I remind the Minister that about two years ago a delegation consisting of London local authorities and some London Members of Parliament went to the Department of Health to raise the very same point that the hon. Member for Crawley
(Mr. Soames) has just raised about the costs involved, which they were willingly bearing, in looking after displaced children. However, at the end of it all we got nothing from the Department of Health in terms of additional vital resources that are absolutely necessary if these children are to be cared for properly.

Mr. Lloyd: As I have already said, these are matter for Department of Health, not for me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) asked about the availability of advice, irrespective of age, but he is particularly concerned about children, as he demonstrated in Committee. I said to him in Committee that the refugee unit is the right group of people to give legal advice. I have put that matter to the unit and it is considering what might be done in terms of providing advice and help that is especially suitable for children, as well as representation on legal matters and their claim for asylum.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to these difficulties. As I said earlier, he is a distinguished former chairman of UKIAS. I believe that he was also a full-time officer of UKIAS, so he knows very well what good work it does. I hope that UKIAS will be able to continue to give advice on refugee, immigration and representational matters after the constitutional changes have been made, which I hope will remove the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman knows exist.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred to a case that he had read about in the newspapers. If I have identified it correctly, it is a case of which we were already well aware and which we were investigating before that report appeared in the newspapers. As my right hon. Friend made his point in this debate, it is not unreasonable that I should briefly reply to it. It has been too easy to defraud the Department of Social Security. That is one of the reasons why we are taking fingerprint powers in the Bill.
We have also made it clear to the DSS—to which it has happily agreed—that the only piece of paper that will justify the Department making social security payments to an asylum seeker is the piece of paper issued by the Home Office with the individual's photograph upon it, as well as a special number. Since that system was introduced last year, about 2,250 asylum seekers—who had not, either through the post or in person, presented documents to us that established their identity—been asked to come in so that their identity could be established. Of those 2,250


people, only 20 per cent. have materialised. That is a measure of the problem that we have to tackle. I do not say that the other 80 per cent. have defrauded anybody, but the integrity of our system needs to be ensured by the provisions contained in the Bill.
I promised the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that I would return to the point that he raised about interpreters. It is very important that they should be capable interpreters and that they should interpret reliably both ways. We take steps to ensure that immigration service interpreters interpret reliably. Representation is looked after by the refugee unit which has its own interpreters; they are not provided by the Home Office. In court, the refugee unit must provide its own interpreters. It may, however, use the same interpreters as the Home Office uses. There is no copyright on interpreters. Each body is responsible, however, for providing its own interpreters.

Mr. Corbyn: I raised this important point because I was concerned about the security of those who provide the translation. My point was that somebody who is privy to the interview, as the translator obviously is, must be absolutely reliable. Unless one is completely certain about those people and the quality of their translation, they could pass information back to an oppressive regime that might be extremely dangerous for the family of the asylum seeker.

Mr. Lloyd: We are very much aware of that concern. We take all the steps that we can to ensure that all our staff, including the interpreters, are secure and keep confidential information that could be extremely damaging if it were released.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Ashby) wanted a second interpreter to be provided. I hope, having listened to what he said, that he realises that in almost all cases there will be a second interpreter—certainly it will not be a Home Office interpreter—when the refugee unit represents an individual. That interpreter will have to talk to this individual, look at the papers produced and decide whether the case is the same as that which was presented by the other interpreter.
I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for his limited personal endorsement. I was interested in what he said about developing UKIAS and his qualified approval of the withdrawal of the green form. Again let me say that the Government have not yet made that decision. All that we are doing is giving serious consideration to an outline proposal.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) for his kind remarks about the UKIAS staff who work at Gatwick. Again I repeat that the advice that the UKIAS field staff give is excellent. The constitutional changes that we expect to make to the organisation are designed to preserve that excellence.

Mr. Fraser: We have listened to criticism of UKIAS, and various proposals and analyses have been put before us. It is a pity and somewhat surprising that, when the Home Secretary made a statement about the ending of the green form advice scheme in July and that when he spoke to the House on Second Reading in October—when he regaled the House with stories about bogus applications, some of which put certain applicants for political asylum

in a bad light—he did not use some of his time to tell the House about his concerns and criticisms and in particular about his proposals for the reorganisation of UKIAS. That has been forced out only by this debate that the Opposition have brought about on Report.
It is proper for me to begin by declaring an interest as a partner in a firm of solicitors that deals with some political asylum cases, and a member of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. Dealing with immigration and political asylum cases is not seen as highly remunerative within the legal profession. It is done by many people as a duty, rather than something that will bring in a great deal of money. There is some misunderstanding—it has not been made clear by the Under-Secretary—that there is a distinction between giving advice and advocacy on appeals. I use the word "advocacy" because it makes the distinction clearer.
There are thousands of cases involving ordinary immigration matters and political asylum applications where advice and assistance is given in presenting the case to the Home Office. It may be a case to stay here as a husband or a political refugee; or, akin to a political refugee, it may be a case involving exceptional leave to remain. Currently, most such cases are dealt with by solicitors and other advice agencies, some of them using the green form scheme.
Thus, it will not be just solicitors who are deprived of the assistance of the green form scheme. About 60 law centres across the country dealing with such work will he deprived of that assistance, as will the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which will be deprived of that form of Government support for advice and preparation of political asylum applications, and a number of other advice agencies throughout the country, which will be deprived of the assistance of the scheme in processing claims.
Most claims are admitted and approved by the Home Office and do not go to appeal or involve advocacy. It must be made clear that what is being proposed by the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary is the abolition of green form advice for between 15,000 and 20,000 cases a year, most of which will never involve advocacy or an approach to UKIAS under the present arrangements, and no appeal or representation at that level. The House must be clear about the scale of the abolition of advice and representations made to the Home Office on political asylum cases. The scale of that in no way matches the scale of the appeals that take place.
It is important to understand the wish and need of people claiming political asylum to have a choice of representation and not to be directed towards an organisation which, no matter how good, is seen as being a state monopoly—and in the light of the letter of 7 October, a state monopoly that is amenable to the Government's bullying.
I was asked for my advice on a case this week involving somebody who feared political persecution because they were a Christian. The person was part of a Christian band in a country that is under a dictatorship. The band engaged in acts of evangelism where people would sing and pray against killing, war and violence. That group of people was arrested by a band of soldiers because it was thought that the opposition to killing represented opposition to the country's presidency. A number of them


were taken to barracks and beaten. One of them was able to escape and that person—I shall not identify the sex—came to the United Kingdom.
For four years, that person has been in the United Kingdom without making a political asylum application. For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), that person has never claimed income support. In fact, that person probably does a part-time, poorly paid job cleaning, perhaps in one of British Telecom's offices. That person has made no claim against the state and there is no question of fraud, duplication or anything of that nature.
That person's concern is not for himself or herself but for their child. The concern is whether the child will be able to survive if the parent is returned to a country under dictatorial rule and is killed or imprisoned. That person has been in so much doubt about whether to make an application that it has taken four years to pluck up courage even to take advice.
I am not criticising UKIAS, but it is important that, in genuine applications of that nature, people should have a choice. They should be able to go somewhere where they believe that their confidence will be respected, which may have been recommended by someone else. That is partly what this is about. In principle, the Under-Secretary agreed that that was incontestable.
New clause 10 ensures that any applicant for political asylum who is in detention should have access to advice from a solicitor or adviser of their choice. The clause fills that out, because it will not work unless the applicant is informed of that right and unless it is underpinned with custody records—that is the experience of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and our ordinary criminal procedures. It does not work unless the interview between the adviser and the person claiming political asylum is conducted in a language that is understood by the applicant. I understand that one cannot provide interpreters for every language, but it is important to choose a language in which the applicant can be understood. I hope that the Under-Secretary will ensure that, even if those provisions are not written into law, they are at least written into our procedures.
New clause 2 seeks to preserve the green form legal advice scheme. It follows that the agreed and incontestable objectives of new clause 10 are impossible to fulfil in practice without the provision of green form advice. New clause 2 is simply a device to get a debate on this subject on to the Order Paper because the Bill is not directly about advice, although it was presented in the context of ending green form advice.
Green form advice costs about£2.85 million a year, and an average of£181 per case. That is not a great deal of money, and it is not possible to charge more than about £50 per case without going to the Legal Aid Board and justifying the additional expenditure. So there are already tight public expenditure controls, and the rate of remuneration is well below that paid to anybody acting in a commercial capacity. There is no possibility of abuse, and the amount of money involved is not high.
Legal advice and assistance underpin the reality of the rights given to applicants for political asylum under the international convention. I say to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that it is important that

vulnerable people, not just adults but children and elderly parents who may have no understanding of the English language or culture, have that underpinning. It is provided now, usually by experts at a low rate of remuneration and a pretty modest overall cost.
The proposal to abolish the green form scheme is mean because it will not save a great deal of money. Even worse, it is vindictive because it is bound to weaken in some way the rights given under the international convention. It begs the question whether the real purpose of the Home Secretary's proposal was not simply a rearrangement of the source of advice, but a way of ensuring that the number of those applying for political asylum is reduced. It is contrary to the spirit of the international convention and to conventions on human rights.
If the scheme is abolished it will rob political asylum applicants of nationwide coverage. In Committee, the Under-Secretary told us that the UKIAS expanded scheme would involve an increase in the number of officers working for the organisation from 23 to 87. That is an extra 64 officers, compared with about 700 specialist firms coupled with advice centres. There is no equation between perhaps 700 and 1,000 observers giving nationwide 24-hour expert coverage and an extra 64 officers working for UKIAS, who are supposed to fulfil the same task.
6 pm
We know that, under the Bill, for the first time, applicants for political asylum who arrive at ports will have rights of appeal—we do not contest that—and those appeals will be dealt with by UKIAS. That is the existing system, but people will have their work cut out in dealing with the appeal aspect, let alone the preparation of the applications, which very often have to be carried out at the ports at short notice and often at unsocial hours and, most importantly, done by people who know what they are talking about and who have some expertise. Abolition of the green form scheme will not only undermine people's rights but destroy the geographic coverage.
Abolition will also unlock the link which was always intended by both Governments between giving advice and applying for legal aid to go to the courts where necessary. What often happens at the moment is that, when someone arrives at a port, an early decision is made to refuse an application for political asylum, and if anything is to be done—whether under the old or the new system—there is a necessity for a judicial review. Abolition will break the link between the lawyer giving advice in the first place and processing the matter within a short time limit to take the matter to a judicial review and the divisional courts. It will abolish what is, as near as damn it, a 24-hour service.
This proposal does not have a single friend. I do not think that one hon. Member has been able to produce a letter, a representation or a delegation from anyone in the United Kingdom in favour of the proposal. Only two people, apart from the Under-Secretary, are in favour of it. One is the Lord Chancellor, represented in the House by the Attorney-General, and the other is the Home Secretary.
I should have thought that the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary were the last people in the world to want to abolish legal advice and assistance. After all, the House was told yesterday that the Attorney-General had spent—I think—£2.1 million on one case. He spent £2.1 million-worth of legal advice and assistance in order to pursue the "Spycatcher" case. That is almost exactly the


same as what is being spent on the green form system which the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor propose to destroy. In view of the Attorney-General's scale of expenditure, he should not be against the scheme.
The other person who should not be against publicly paid legal representation is the Home Secretary, who is not doing too badly for legal advice. The costs of his going to the divisional court will be paid not by him but by a legal aid scheme provided by the Government. His costs in going to the Court of Appeal and of having the best Queen's counsel were paid out of the public purse. When he goes to the House of Lords on his contempt rap, he will receive legal aid. Indeed, the sum involved would keep a very large proportion of the green form scheme in being for a long time.
The proposals are disreputable and they have become more disreputable the more they have been examined. They are disreputable because they deny choice, because the cost at the moment is relatively small, because they involve threats to UKIAS and because they attack and undermine those who are most vulnerable. I hope that the House will uphold our international obligations and our tradition of choice of representation by supporting the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 301.

Division No. 45]
[6.04 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Crowther, Stan


Anderson, Donald
Cryer, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Eadie, Alexander


Battle, John
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Enright, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bellotti, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Fearn, Ronald


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carr, Michael
Gordon, Mildred


Cartwright, John
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy



Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Hara, Edward


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Geraint
Radice, Giles


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Randall, Stuart


Hoyle, Doug
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Robertson, George


Ingram, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey


Janner, Greville
Rogers, Allan


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rooney, Terence


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles
Ruddock, Joan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lambie, David
Short, Clare


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Loyden, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


McAllion, John
Stephen, Nicol


McCartney, Ian
Stott, Roger


Macdonald, Calum A.
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McMaster, Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wallace, James


Marek, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wareing, Robert N.


Martlew, Eric
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Michael, Alun
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wilson, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morley, Elliot
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mowlam, Marjorie



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Ayes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


O'Brien, William





NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.






Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
 Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hanley, Jeremy


Buck, Sir Antony
Hannam, Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Hawkins, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cash, William
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Irving, Sir Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James 
Kilfedder, James


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, Sir John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, David


Gill, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mans, Keith


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Maples, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)



Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Mates, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Speed, Keith


Mills, Iain
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stevens, Lewis


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Mudd, David
Stokes, Sir John


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Valley)


Norris, Steve



Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thorne, Neil


Page, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Price, Sir David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Ward, John


Riddick, Graham
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, Sir John


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Whitney, Ray


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Yeo, Tim


Shelton, Sir William
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

'. No power conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State shall be exercised in circumstances where the exercise of the power would be in breach of an international treaty or obligation to which the United Kingdom is a party.'.—[Mr. Darling.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—Interpretation—
'( ).—(1) In the interpretation or exercise of any provision or power in this Act regard shall be had to the Convention, the Handbook on Procedures on Criteria for Determining Refugee Status as published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from time to time and the European Convention on Human Rights which carne into force on 3rd September 1953.
(2) Where any provision of this Act appears to be inconsistent with the matters set out in subsection (1) above, the Conventions and Handbook shall prevail.'.
Government amendment No. 25.

Mr. Darling: New clauses 3 and 6 and Government amendment No. 25 have a similar effect. In Committee, we were anxious that, when it came to interpretation, regard should be taken of the United Nations convention on refugees and, in particular, the United Nations handbook on refugees which is published for the guidance of those who interpret that convention. There was much debate on that subject and the Minister undertook to reflect on the issue and decide whether the Bill could be suitably amended, and I am glad that he has.
Government amendment No. 25 states that
nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.
I am pleased that the Government tabled the amendment, which means that the legislation will be justciable so that matters relating to asylum or, more importantly, interpretation and the provision of immigration rules—whether procedural or substantive—would allow an aggrieved applicant the opportunity to argue his case before a court. As we said in Committee, it is certainly our view—and I think that it is the view of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—that a declaratory statement of this sort, as well as being novel in our legislation, would be welcome. I am grateful to the Minister for having made the concession.
I do not want to press new clause 3 or new clause 6 to a Division, or to detain the House on this group of amendments. It might be more useful to discuss some of the matters relating to the interpretation of the rules, and we shall have an opportunity to do that in the debate on the next group of amendments.

Mr. Maclennan: I should like to thank the Minister for the Government amendment. It is a useful attempt to deal with a point that I raised in Committee—the compatibility of the immigration rules with our international obligations, particularly those under the international convention. However, I am not sure that the drafting of the amendment is entirely felicitous. The new provision could be understood as indicating to a court that the intention was that the immigration rules should conform with the provisions of the convention. I am afraid, however, that a slightly different interpretation might be placed upon the language: that the declaratory intention has not necessarily been given effect and that the rules themselves will take precedence over the statutory provisions. I hope that I am wrong. It may be that if the rules were independently adjudged to be contrary to the convention the Government's proposed provision would be binding and that the rule would be invalidated. No doubt the Minister will want to deal with the point.
Parliament cannot bind its successors, but in this respect rules that do not have the full force of law as

prescribed by Parliament may be somewhat different. In other words, I am not sure whether, if there were a conflict between the convention and the rules as amended, the rules would prevail or whether this provision would ensure that they did not.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I welcome amendment No. 25 very much because it makes clear beyond doubt that there is no basis of any kind for the various scurrilous newspaper articles suggesting that genuine refugees might be sent back, in breach of United Nations convention obligations. I should like to quote from an article by Caroline Moorhead in The Independent of 18 November. It set off a flood of letters attacking the Government for their inhumanity. The letters, some of which have reached me, are completely without foundation, as I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will indicate. Caroline Moorhead, in her article, says:
At least 2,000 victims of torture who have managed to get temporary permission to remain in Britain are faced with deportation—and possible further torture—if the Asylum Bill becomes law.
The article goes on to say that if the Bill is passed those who have been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom
can, in theory, be picked up, detained … and deported.
The writer of the article appears to rely heavily on advice given by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which says that the Bill poses grave dangers. The article goes on:
Precisely what form it will take is not clear, since no attempt has been made to spell out the Bill's consequences. But inherent in its proposals is the possibility that people who fled their country after persistent brutality may again find themselves facing it.
Later the article says:
Since it is planned to make the legislation retrospective, and most of the foundation's clients are on Temporary Admission or Exceptional Leave to Remain, there is hardly a person on its books not at risk of deportation.

Mr. Darling: I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution. He looks as though he has just returned from a busy day in court. Does he accept that the article from which he has quoted was written before the Government tabled their amendments? Those amendments meet some of the points that the article makes. However, the author of the article cannot be faulted for having raised these concerns. None of the matters had been discussed in Committee, let alone on Report.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, the letters to which I have referred are still circulating. It appears that the message that went out during the Committee stage has not reached the people who seem to be very concerned about the matter. That being the case, it is all the more important that we take this opportunity to send the message loud and clear to everyone. Everybody has the highest regard for the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which does exceptional work. I am sure that all its intentions are good, but it does not seem to be above a little bit of scurrility.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity—undoubtedly the umpteenth, as has been indicated—to make several points. First, he should make it clear that the immigration authorities give the most scrupulous


attention to the opinion of the foundation that any person is a genuine refugee and would refuse to accept its advice only if there were cogent evidence to the contrary.
When I raised this matter with the Department early in December I was given an example of the kind of case in which the advice of the medical foundation was not taken. The House may be interested in that example. It concerns a Zairean asylum seeker who claimed to have been severely beaten while in detention. The foundation's report concluded that scars on his body were entirely consistent with that claim. The Home Office commissioned independent medical advisers, who said that there was clear evidence that the applicant had been physically maltreated but that there was no particular evidence that the maltreatment had occurred recently in Zaire. There was some ambiguity about the medical evidence.
The immigration authorities, however, considered the story implausible for other reasons. In the luggage of the asylum seeker, who claimed that he had been tortured by the Zairean authorities, were five blank Zairean birth certificates bearing official signatures and an incomplete and unsigned Zairean passport in a name other than his. That seemed to suggest skulduggery rather than that the person was a genuine asylum seeker. Notwithstanding that, the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain. The Department made it clear to me, however—and this was probably good sense—that he was given exceptional leave not solely on the basis of the medical evidence.
6.30 pm
Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that, where there is evidence of recent torture, a person will be treated as a genuine asylum seeker? If scars are so old that they cannot have been caused recently by the regime against which a person is complaining, or if there are other reasons to doubt whether the scars were caused by torture, as opposed to a fight or personal dispute, it may be another matter: the person may not be in genuine fear of persecution. I do not think that we should rule out the reasonable consideration of all the circumstances.
Thirdly, will my hon. Friend confirm that no refugee who has been given leave to stay in the United Kingdom for humanitarian reasons will be placed at risk of deportation as a result of the Bill?
Finally, will my hon. Friend confirm that the article to which I alluded is misleading about the Government's approach to the political activities of asylum seekers? Of course asylum seekers have the right to free speech and political association, just like everyone else in this country, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reiterate the point that, if someone who has absolutely no history of political association stands up in front of a camera and says something offensive to the regime back home, for the sole purpose of being able to say, "I cannot go back because I have offended the regime," he is making a mockery of the rules. Only in those circumstances have the Government said that the way in which a person makes such statements and assertions can and should be taken into consideration before a final judgment is made.
I am delighted that hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to agree that the kind of criticism levelled against the Bill before its Committee stage no longer has

any foundation—if it ever did—and I hope we shall be able to make clear beyond peradventure the ridiculous nature of such scurrilous comments.
The Government amendment seems to have everyone's approval. I hope that my hon. Friend will kindly confirm my assertions so that we can safely put to bed all the misrepresentations of the Government's intentions and so that we can all be happy.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I do not believe that either the new clauses or Government amendment No. 25 are strictly necessary. The Government do not take on commitments that they do not, in good faith, intend to keep—nor do they exercise their commitments in a way that conflicts with our international obligations. It could be argued that there is a whole range of obligations relevant to the Bill besides the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees and the 1953 European convention on human rights, to which the new clauses refer. I suspect that if we made a list of them and inserted them into the Bill, the only practical result would be to provide pegs on which to hang more or less obscure arguments for judicial review. I do not believe that that would assist the asylum seeker with a well-founded fear of persecution. It would certainly complicate and delay the procedures for determining applications fairly that the Bill was designed to speed up.
We shall come to debate the International Labour Organisation convention and the European social charter in connection with the final group of amendments, so I shall not mention them now; indeed, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) was brief, I shall not say a great deal more myself.
As the United Nations convention is central to the Bill, I undertook in Committee to consider transferring from the rules the words that make it clear that nothing in those rules—which have to be made under the Immigration Act 1971—shall lay down any practice that would be contrary to the convention. Amendment No. 25 does precisely that, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central welcomes it.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) also welcomed the amendment in general, but asked me a specific question. I believe that his worries are unfounded, but I shall re-examine the amendment and make quite sure that it does what it is intended to do. I believe that the amendment means that any rule that was in breach of the United Nations convention would be ultra vires and that the court would rule it unlawful were it brought before it.
I welcomed the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) because he produced useful correctives to some of the things said by some groups, not least the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. My hon. and learned Friend referred in particular to the Moorhead article, which was deeply misinformed, caused a lot of unnecessary worry and work and wasted a great deal of newsprint.
My hon. and learned Friend wanted assurances on four matters—first, that the Government always pay close attention to the medical foundation's reports. I can assure him that we always do, but people can have marks or wounds on their bodies for many reasons and there can be various interpretations of the way in which they have come by them. We have to make our decision not merely on the basis of a report saying that the marks are consistent with


one form of treatment but on the basis of the other evidence that we have about the antecedents of the particular individual claiming asylum.
My hon. and learned Friend asked whether signs of recent torture could mean that the person was a genuine asylum seeker. I forget exactly how he worded his question. Signs of recent torture constitute very convincing evidence that someone is genuine, but, in deciding whether to grant asylum, we must ask ourselves whether that person has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns home. The fact that someone has been deliberately injured by another person is not conclusive, but it goes a long way to establishing a claim if the other evidence suggests that he would have fear of persecution if we sent him back to where he came from.
It has been suggested—I believe in the article by Caroline Moorhead—that, because of the measures in the Bill, people who have been given leave to remain will be put at risk of being sent away again. Nothing in the Bill alters their situation. Those who have been given exceptional leave to remain must apply to have that leave renewed, but that happens under existing law. The difference will be that if, for some reason, that person's leave is not renewed—which would not be as a result of the Bill—the Bill would ensure that he had the right of appeal to the special adjudication authority in respect to his turned-down asylum claim. That is the only respect in which the position of someone given leave to remain in Britain temporarily or indefinitely—certainly temporarily—can be altered, and it is a change to that person's advantage.
My hon. and learned Friend asked me how behaviour in this country could bear upon someone's asylum claim. A person's behaviour can bear only on his credibility, not on the objective question whether he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return home. Often, those matters turn, at least in part, on the credibility of an individual. That credibility is certainly undermined if a person indulges in activities in this country which are inconsistent with his previous activities and are calculated to create for him an asylum claim or to enhance one that he already has. The matter goes to credibility; it does not go to the final decision. Because it is a factor in credibility, it seems only fair and honest to say so in the rules.
There are few cases in which credibility is undermined in that way, but there have been a number in which people have no fear of asylum in the country from which they came but have engaged in activities here in order to construct such a fear because they wished to stay longer than their visitors' entry visas allowed. However, the measure will not be used to send people back to a country in which they have a well-founded fear of persecution.
Although the Bill is designed to make our procedures more efficient, it is predicated on the basis that someone who arrives here with a well-founded fear of persecution in the place from which he has come will find a safe haven. That is the intention of the Bill and that is why I am happy to introduce amendment No. 25, although, strictly speaking, it is unnecessary. However, it is a reassurance and a signal. If, by any chance, any Government should produce rules in conflict with the United Nations convention, they would have to amend this primary legislation before they could avoid a court striking it down.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

PROCEDURE ON RULES RELATING TO ASYLUM

'. The following paragraph is inserted after the second paragraph of section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971—
No rule relating to asylum, or change in such a rule, shall have effect until the statement of that rule, or change in a rule, has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Darling.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end add—
'(3) The Secretary of State shall from time to time lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or of any changes in the rules, laid down by him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act, such rules to be known as the Immigration (Asylum) Rules, and the Secretary of State shall consult with, and have regard to the views of, the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in drawing up such rules.'.

Mr. Darling: Perhaps I may make two preliminary points. The new clause, together with amendment No. 1, bears upon the rules. Perhaps the Bill is unusual in that it depends on the Lord Chancellor's rules of procedure and the immigration rules to make it work. It was not surprising, therefore, that in Committee there was much discussion about the rules, as a result of which changes have been made.
My first preliminary point is that it is extremely unfortunate that the revised rules—there are substantial revisions both in the procedure rules and in the immigration rules—were made available to members of the Committee only at 1 o'clock this afternoon. It follows, therefore, that my remarks may stand to be corrected, as I may have missed some points that I did not see in the comparison that I was able to make between the old rules and the new rules between 1 o'clock and 3.30 this afternoon. That is unfortunate. There is a duty on hon. Members to scrutinise legislation before it is passed into law. Fortunately, there is an opportunity in another place further to examine the rules as they bear upon the Bill.
My second preliminary point—the Minister might he more cheered by it—is that substantial concessions have been made by the Government. I regard that as a tribute not only to the argument that took place in Committee but to the substantive pressure that was brought to bear on the Government by the many agencies, organisations and individuals outside the House who were concerned at the Government's original proposals. Some of them, including the author of the article to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred, played their part in making the Government think again.
I do not believe in unnecessarily using words such as "climbdown", "U-turn" and so on—I would not go that far. However, it is fair to say that the Government have brought forward the Bill in a hasty manner. Our debate about legal aid demonstrated that the Home Secretary and the Government had not fully thought out the implications contained in the Home Secretary's statement on 2 July last year, let alone in the Bill itself. It is noticeable that the trumpeting that took place last summer and last autumn, particularly at the Tory party conference, has not been repeated today because the Government know that they have had to change their mind on a number of significant


points. We shall still seek to divide the House because, despite the many concessions that the Government have made, the Bill remains flawed in one or two essential respects.
I shall deal briefly with the various papers that the Minister has been good enough to make available to members of the Committee. I assume that they are available to other hon. Members as well. I refer first to the Lord Chancellor's draft rules relating to procedure. The first concession that the Government have made—it is extremely welcome and it attracted much comment—was that applicants seeking leave to appeal now have 10 days to do so rather than the ridiculously short period of two days provided in the original rules. Paragraph 29 of the new draft provides that time limits in general may be waived, I think, on cause shown. That is an extremely welcome concession. It will undoubtedly remove some of the injustices that we feared would occur with individuals having only two days in which to lodge their appeals.
6.45 pm
Equally, I very much welcome the Government's change of heart with regard to oral hearings, up to a point. It is now provided quite clearly in paragraph 9 that hearings will be determined orally in two quite specific circumstances. However, there is still no right of appeal for applicants as such. There is only an entitlement to apply for leave to appeal. When leave to appeal is granted, an oral hearing follows, but there is no right to an oral hearing when arguing the point of leave to appeal. The two things are, of course, quite different.
I am pleased that the original paragraph 5(7) in the original rules, which required that the special adjudicator should grant the applicant leave to appeal unless he was satisfied that the applicant did not have an arguable claim for asylum, appears—at least from my preliminary reading at lunchtime time today—to have been dropped. I make that point because we argued strongly in Committee that, when considering whether an applicant has an arguable claim, it would be necessary to assess matters of credibility. Therefore, the Minister's point in response to the hon. and learned Member for Burton was crucial when considering the terms of paragraph 5(7) of the old rules.
However, it would appear that in the new rules paragraph 5(7) is not replicated in its original form. If that means that there is a different onus on the special adjudicator, it is to be welcomed. As I have said, that point will require further consideration—I hope that it will be in another place—because I have not had an opportunity to consider whether in the fine print of the rules there is some further qualification.
The amendments to the Lord Chancellor's procedure rules are welcome. I am sure that those who have brought pressure to bear on the Government will be pleased that some changes have been made.
On the draft immigration rules and the revision that was published today, again substantial concessions have been made, although questions remain. When considering credibility, the first thing that has to be said is that, in the original rules, the Home Office had to consider a number of factors such as the failure of an applicant to apply for asylum immediately on his arrival in the United Kingdom, whether false representations were made, and whether—it is an important point—documents were destroyed,

damaged or disposed of. We cited the example of the Kurd fleeing Iraq, who would not have arrived in this country with proper travel documents because he would never have got out of Iraq if he had had such documents. I am pleased that the Government have now included an important caveat, which is that, if no reasonable explanation is adduced, such matters may affect an applicant's credibility; in other words, it appears that the applicant for asylum has an opportunity to explain why no immediate claim was made or why the documents were destroyed or damaged. That concession is important.
It is important to note that the interpretation of the rules will be crucial. Although the Minister has published a guide to the Home Office procedure—I am bound to say that it is more like a tourist guide to the Home Office rather than a detailed examination of the standing orders—I hope that, once he has a final draft or the actual standing orders given to those who interpret the rules, he will make them available. Although the changes that the Government have made are very welcome, or at least appear to be so, the interpretation will be crucial.
The point is important when one examines the new paragraph 6(d) which deals with those applicants for asylum who undertake any activities in this country which might be calculated to enhance a claim for asylum. The Minister and the Home Secretary graphically painted a picture of someone who had never any intention of applying for asylum but who, deciding that this was the best avenue for extending leave to stay in the country, would appear in front of the television camera, denounce the Government of the country from where he came and then seek asylum.
The Government have now changed the paragraph to qualify it to the extent that the behaviour must be inconsistent with previous beliefs and behaviour. That is welcome, but I should like the Minister to tell us how we judge whether it is inconsistent. It is clearly a matter of judgment. Any of us who have even a modicum of experience of these matters will know that much depends on the individual officer in deciding whether such and such an expression might be consistent with beliefs.
For example, I might hold very strong beliefs about something but might never say anything about it. Then one day I am moved for one reason or another to make a public utterance. Someone judging me could say that I had never said anything in the past about these things, whereas I could have said things privately or things that had never come to public notice. It would, therefore, be helpful if the Minister could let us know what guidelines for interpretation are to be applied to the provisions of that subclause.
Equally, I am pleased that the blanket statement that the actions of anyone who appeared to act on behalf of an applicant could be held against the applicant has now been removed, and it is clearly stated that it has to be the actions of anyone acting as an agent. However, one or two problems remain, one of which I would like to deal with.
I am not certain whether the influx of Albanian refugees or those who purported to seek asylum in Italy is likely to be replicated in the United Kingdom because of our geographical position, but the same thing may happen on a small scale: we have had experience of groups of 10, 20 or 30 applying. I am concerned that paragraph 9 of the revised rules still seems to provide that an assessment can be made of one individual and the outcome of that assessment will determine the applications of the rest of the


group. That does not seem to me to be desirable, but, rather, fraught with dangers. It is one of the flaws that the Government must tackle. Presumably these draft rules will have to be further revised because they must be approved by the House, but I should like the Government to think about that.
Similarly, on the question of the third-country cases, the Government have made an improvement in the original provision, but there is still this concern about the interpretation of a safe third country.
I have not dealt exhaustively with these rules because it is impossible to do so on Report, but 1 thought it right to highlight some of the problems which I expect and hope will be addressed in another place.
The Minister has also been good enough to have published the proposed procedure for dealing with asylum applications. The more I read it, the more it appeared not to be guidelines that would be issued to the immigration officers and the Home Office staff who will deal with these things but more the sort of glossy publication that one might find as a guide to the Home Office and how it works. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked for this to be made available and he may have something more to say about it.
One thing struck me in paragraph 9 which has some bearing on a later group of amendments dealing with housing: it still makes the point that there may be some delay before asylum applications reach the asylum division and are recorded, and that has some bearing on whether an individual ought to be housed under clause 3 of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to talk about delays which are, in some people's view, endemic in the Home Office and which, when they affect an individual, are a serious matter.
Something also ought to be said—because it has a direct bearing on the terms of this amendment—on the political asylum questionnaire that the Minister has made available. I had the opportunity of looking at one of these, perhaps in a slightly different form, when I visited terminal 3 at Heathrow a couple of years ago. My only concern is that the questions are fairly general. When I watched an officer going through an applicant's form with him, he stuck rather rigidly to the questions; where one answer came up that did not quite fit in with the question, the officer said,
Well, the question does not say that so we'll just put 'Yes'.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will appreciate that the immigration officer is filling in a preliminary questionnaire to get some basic facts down, not as a member of the asylum division staff who is assessing a case. I just want to make sure that the hon. Member is distinguishing who he is talking about, because the immigration officer has a limited task which is to get some basic facts down.

Mr. Darling: I apologise. I was using the general term. I was surrounded by immigration officers that day. He was, as I understand it, a member of the asylum division. If the Minister doubts it, I am afraid that I did not ask him to identify himself with name, rank and number, but I was led to believe that that is what he was. I confess that my attention was more taken up with the form itself and with the exchange of questioning between the "officer", if I might call him that, the interpreter and the person seeking asylum.
The central thrust of our complaint about the immigration rules—I suppose that it goes to the heart of one of our objections to the Bill—is that, contrary to what was said in the press release when the Bill was introduced, there is no right of appeal; in fact, the right of appeal has been taken away from in-country people. The only thing that remains is the right to seek leave to appeal; that remains in the rules, as I understand it. There is no oral hearing to be allowed, which is something that we argued for when arguing for leave to appeal.
For that reason we believe that the rules are fundamentally flawed, but, as I indicated at the start, and having entered the caveat that I must enter in case I am faulted later—that the opportunity to look at these rules was substantially less than we should have liked—it appears that the Government have accepted many of the criticisms that were levelled at them, and even if I had any doubt about that from my reading of the rules I think that my assertion would be greatly supported by the fact that the Home Secretary is not proposing to speak on the Bill. That speaks eloquently of the extent to which the Government have changed their minds since the Bill was introduced last year.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the House did not have the revised draft rules earlier. I produced the original draft rules in time for First Reading. They have been revised extensively in the light of what was said in Committee and other comments upon them and because of our own desire at the Home Office to make them clearer. This is a further draft, and I have no doubt that there may be further changes after discussions in another place and that we shall not get to a final draft until the rules are laid before the House in the normal way, when there will be the opportunity for the House to take a decision on them.
I am almost reluctant to mention new clause 4 because the hon. Gentleman said little about it. However, it would require a change to the rules relating to asylum to be approved by both Houses before those provisions could come into effect.
It would be unthinkable for the House not to have sufficient opportunity to debate and, if it so decides, to reject any changes in the asylum rules. That is why the Immigration Act 1971 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement of any changes in the immigration rules, leaving the House 40 days in which to debate them and, if it so desires, to reject them. If the House rejects the changes, the Secretary of State must lay before the House a statement making further changes. That provides an opportunity for the parliamentary scrutiny of changes to the rules while always allowing changes to be made quickly, where necessary. I shall make only the basic observation that since September 1990 there have been nine different changes in the immigration rules, but the Opposition have asked for debates on none of them.

7 pm

Mr. Darling: To be fair, and for the benefit of those who follow the proceedings in this place, may I point out that many changes to the immigration rules are minor and uncontroversial? I am sure that the Minister will recognise that it is only when matters of substance need to be debated that we request and get debates. Changes to the


immigration rules may involve adding or deleting a country from a list, which is not always a worthy reason for detaining the House for an evening's debate.

Mr. Lloyd: That is perfectly right and that is what I would have gone on to say, but the hon. Gentleman has put it very well. I wish, however, that he would talk more about his new clause, which requires that there should be such a debate before any changes could be effected. The Opposition were, of course, right not to press for debates on minor matters, but they are introducing provisions that require a debate before any changes can be effective. They have the opportunity to ensure that there is a debate within 40 days of the introduction of any such changes.
I turn now to the hon. Gentleman's questions about the further revisions to the rules of procedure and to the immigration rules themselves. I am glad that he is pleased with the changes. I do not want to undermine his satisfaction and, because he was generous to me, I shall not argue with him much about the fact that fundamental changes have been pressed upon us and that he does not intend to press us as far as his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) by suggesting that there has been a climbdown. When he reads the rules, he will see that, in principle, they remain as they were before, except in areas on which we specifically consulted.
I refer to the length of time that somebody has to ask for leave to appeal. That was always a matter for consultation and we have changed the provisions to the 10 working days' requirement. That is the general requirement in the tribunal and special appellate system. The Home Office has sought to explain more clearly in words the original intention that was incorporated in the rules—to explain them more fully in cases where there has been misunderstanding, and generally to make the provisions clearer. In that sense, our discussions in Committee and the comments that have been made by those outside the House, especially the UNHCR, have been helpful.
As a number of areas on which I could comment are covered by later amendments, it would not be sensible for me to take up the time of the House with them now—

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister has sent those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee a consultation draft of the statutory instrument and the immigration rule changes. Although they require some study and application, we have now had them for only a couple of hours. Exactly what procedure does the Minister propose to adopt on the method of consultation? As far as I am aware, consultation has not taken this form previously for Members of Parliament. Is the Minister inviting representations from us now, or is he proposing that, following the representations, there may be a debate on a prayer not to agree the statutory instrument?

Mr. Lloyd: I am publishing them in draft to invite representations and comments from the House either now during the debate or from hon. Members after the debate or from organisations outside the House in an attempt to allow informed discussion in another place. We shall then produce another set of rules—possibly exactly the same, but perhaps containing further changes—that will then come before both Houses in the normal way for their approval. There is time for further representation—

Mr. Corbyn: How much time?

Mr. Lloyd: Not until the legislation is on the statute book, but not very much later than that date, which I hope will be within a limited period. This is not the end of the representation period. If the hon. Gentleman would like to consider the provisions further, he can then let me know his views. He does not need to feel that he has lost his chance or that he need detain the House this evening while he reads through them and cogitates.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the "arguable claim" and to the fact that the adjudicator would judge, on the papers, whether there was an arguable claim. The hon. Gentleman was pleased that those provisions are not in the latest draft of the procedural rules. However, the paper that is attached to the procedural rules may have come adrift on his copy. That paper suggests that, as I said in Committee, I want to see that description reworded and included in the primary legislation because I believe—[Interruption.] I shall show the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. It is here. So that there can be no misunderstanding, I advise the House that the phrase "arguable claim" has come out of the rules so that it can be included in the primary legislation in a different form.
I regret that I have been unable to produce that amendment for debate this evening, but we look forward to introducing it in another place. We shall seek to make it clear that, if the adjudicator believed every word of the case that was put to him by the appellant, he would have to acknowledge that that would be a claim that was at least arguable under the United Nations convention. The adjudicator makes his decision, not on the credibility of the applicant, but on the claim that the applicant has made to him. The adjudicator will say to himself, "Although I may not believe that this looks true and the Home Office is right to disbelieve it, if it looks true, that claim would be arguable under the United Nations convention, so I must have a full oral hearing."
That is how we filter out those manifestly unfounded claims in which there is no disagreement about the fact that the individual has come from a third safe country where his claim would be properly heard, or, as was mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, those cases where by no stretch of the imagination could the United Nations convention cover that claim. I refer, for example, to the case of the woman who sought asylum because she said that her mother-in-law was interfering in her marriage so much that the marriage would break up if she and her husband were not allowed to come here to live. We are talking about a low threshold, but one which the Government believe necessary to filter out the manifestly unfounded claims. In fact, that threshold is much lower than the one that was produced by the Bar Council in the rather eccentric evidence and suggestions that it has sent to me.

Mr. Darling: Perhaps the Minister could tell us from where this information comes. He says that it is from a piece of paper that may have become detached from the papers that he sent us at lunchtime. The issue of what the special adjudicator has to decide is crucial. If the Minister is saying that that information is not in the rules, the draft rules or the Bill, but is on a detached piece of paper, he


appears to be falling short of the standards that we normally expect from the Government. On what detached piece of paper is that information?

Mr. Lloyd: I am giving the hon. Gentleman the piece of paper that I have detached, and he may read it. The hon. Gentleman should worry less than he does because the amendment that will be produced from that is not before us today. It will, I am afraid, have to be introduced in another place, but I did not want the hon. Gentleman to think that "arguable case" had simply been dropped from the rules. The Government propose to do what I presaged in Committee, which is to introduce an amendment into the primary legislation that will make it quite clear how low the threshold must be before the adjudicator can refuse the claim to appeal.
The hon. Gentleman raised several other points. On the question of credibility, he referred in particular to paragraph 6(d):
that the applicant has undertaken any activities in the United Kingdom before or after lodging his application which are inconsistent with his previous beliefs and behaviour and calculated to create or substantially enhance his claim for refugee status.
That, of course, is the kind of question—and there are many of them—that the asylum division has to answer in each case. It has to look at the totality of the claim, what the individual says, and all the available evidence so that it can make a fair decision that takes everything into account.
The rules indicate that these are matters which affect credibility, have always affected credibility and must always affect credibility—not necessarily deleteriously, because if there is a good answer it will explain the point. These matters are inevitably taken into account where the totality of a claim is being considered. It is only fair and honest that this be put down in writing and indicated clearly, and that it should continue to be the case, since some interested individuals, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, do not quite realise that this is the case. We shall be coming later to a number of these points.
I cannot support the proposals tabled by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. He did not give them much support himself. On the rules, I am glad that he is pleased with the changes that have been made. I hope that on further study, when he has had longer to look at them, he will be even more pleased. This is a second draft and we are still open to suggestions and criticisms. My aim is to ensure that the Government's original intentions come over clearly. I believe that the changes that we have made have helped and that the Opposition, although not assenting to them all, have found them more satisfactory. For that I am grateful.

Mr. Darling: I will not argue with the Minister's explanations. It really does not matter why the rules have been changed. I believe that, after further examination, further improvements will be suggested. Many of the changes are welcome, but there is much further to go. Incidentally, I said that I would not use the term "climbdown" with regard to the rules but I would not depart for one minute from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about the Government's change of heart on the legal aid, advice and assistance scheme. That is most certainly a climbdown.
On the question of what constitutes an arguable claim, it is regrettable that the Government's proposals are not contained in the Bill, the draft rules or even the second draft; they are contained in what appears to be a press notice indicating that the Government intend to change their mind on the question. That is extremely unfortunate. It is the sort of behaviour that has dogged this Bill since its heralding in July last year. It appears that the Government have it in mind to make further amendments, some of them substantial. I am glad of that. The longer the Government continue to amend the Bill, the better are the chances that some of the risks that were quite rightly highlighted during the passage of the Bill will be lessened.
We remain dissatisfied with the rules, particularly on the question of leave to appeal, and for that reason we will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 287.

Division No. 46]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Eastham, Ken


Allen, Graham
Edwards, Huw


Alton, David
Enright, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fatchett, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fearn, Ronald


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flannery, Martin


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Derek


Bellotti, David
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blair, Tony
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hain, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carr, Michael
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Darling, Alistair
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Janner, Greville


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dewar, Donald
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Eadie, Alexander
Kirkwood, Archy






Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Randall, Stuart


Lambie, David
Redmond, Martin


Lamond, James
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Leadbitter, Ted
Reid, Dr John


Leighton, Ron
Robertson, George


Lewis, Terry
Robinson, Geoffrey


Litherland, Robert
Rogers, Allan


Livingstone, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooney, Terence


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Short, Clare


McMaster, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stephen, Nicol


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliot
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wareing, Robert N.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Brien, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Hara, Edward
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Parry, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Allen McKay.


Radice, Giles





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Allason, Rupert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Ashby, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carrington, Matthew


Body, Sir Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cash, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Boswell, Tim
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bottomley, Peter
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Churchill, Mr





Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Irving, Sir Charles


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Janman, Tim


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, John Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marlow, Tony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hannam, Sir John
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mudd, David


Harris, David
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Irvine, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sumberg, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Summerson, Hugo


Portillo, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Price, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redwood, John
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Valley)


Rhodes James, Sir Robert



Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thorne, Neil


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rowe, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Tracey, Richard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, Sir William
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, Sir John


Speller, Tony
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Stokes, Sir John
Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD

'No statutory instrument giving effect to or supplementing any of the provisions of this Act shall contain any provision depriving a person of a right to be heard before a special adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.'.—[Mr. Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 4, in clause 5, page 5, line 39, at end add—
'(8) Rule 14 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 shall have effect in respect of appeals from the special adjudicator to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.'.
No. 5, in clause 6, page 5, line 48, after 'law', insert 'or fact'.
No. 6, in page, 6, line 12, at end add—
'(5) For the purposes of this section the words "question of law" include the question as to whether an asylum seeker has had the opportunity to be heard and to be represented before a special adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.'.
No. 9, in schedule 2, page 10, line 31, at end insert
'except on a question of law in those cases where the parties to the application for leave have been heard and have appeared before the special adjudicator, but otherwise a refusal shall attract a right of appeal.'.

No. 10, in page 11, line 14, at end insert
'and an application for leave to appeal to the Tribunal shall be on any question of law or fact material to that determination.'.

Mr. Fraser: New clause 7 would prevent the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor from making any immigration appeal rules that would deprive an applicant on an appeal, or seeking leave to appeal, of a hearing before the special adjudicator or the immigration appeal tribunal. It is a matter to which we referred in our previous debate and about which we argued at great length in Committee. We return, however, to our belief that those who have a case to be heard have the right to have their case put to an adjudicator personally, to be heard personally before him, rather than the application being submitted in writing for leave to appeal.
Amendment No. 4 would incorporate in the new draft rules, which the Government have published today, rule 14 of the immigration appeal rules of 1984. Rule 14 of the set of rules that apply to existing appeals gives a person whose appeal has been turned down by an adjudicator the right to obtain leave to appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal on a point of law—that is the first limb—and provides an exception that takes effect in those cases where it is argued by the appellant that to refuse leave to remain would put the Government in breach of the convention on refugees. In that second, limited area, there is a right of appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal.
7.30 pm
By means of amendment No. 4, we propose to preserve the special right that has been incorporated in the appeal rules ever since they were first enunciated. I think that the Minister would agree that the 1984 rules are a rehash of earlier rules. It is important to draw attention to rule 14 because unless its effect is preserved the new rules will represent a significant subtraction from the rights of claimants for political asylum who are in the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 5 is an alternative to the new clause. When someone had not been able to exercise the right to be heard before a special adjudicator, the breach of that fundamental right would in itself amount to a ground for appeal on a point of law to the adjudicator and thence to the immigration appeal tribunal.
Amendment No. 6 is an alternative to amendment No. 5. Perhaps it goes further, because it would widen appeal rights to include an appeal on a point of fact. If the Minister does not concede the new clause and amendment No. 5, amendment No. 6 would introduce a right of appeal on a point of fact and everyone would be able to exercise that right of appeal.
Amendment No. 9 replicates amendment No. 5 in its application to the immigration appeal tribunal. Amendment No. 10 replicates amendment No. 6, again in respect of the immigration appeal tribunal. At the heart of the new clause and the amendments is the right to be heard, which is fundamental to the exercise of an appellant's rights before any judicial or quasi-judicial body.
The Minister may be going about the matter in the wrong way and thereby making a rod for his own back. He said earlier that to obtain leave to appeal it is necessary only to write out a claim, and if every word of it is true that must constitute a ground for giving leave to appeal to the special adjudicator.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is only if everything in the claim is true and it provides grounds that are arguable under the United Nations convention. Only then will the adjudicator be obliged to allow an oral appeal.

Mr. Fraser: That is what I meant. As the right to be heard is being removed, something of a premium is being put on a case that will not be made under oath and in such terms that it will be difficult for the special adjudicator to resist giving leave to appeal. That is why I said that the Minister may be making a rod for his own back.
The proper solution might be to adopt the procedure of the High Court in cases of judicial review. In such cases—this is not exclusively so—the applicant makes an application in writing to be considered by the judge. In many cases, the judge will give leave for judicial review—in other words, leave to appeal against a decision refusing the status of political asylum. In those cases where the judge does not give leave on the written application, there is automatically the right to renew the application and to make an oral application to the divisional court and to be heard. It is the right to be heard at one point or another in the process which is at the heart of the new clause and the amendments.
In the long run, it would satisfy the basic tenets of justice if our amendments were accepted. Ironically enough, they might provide greater satisfaction for the Minister. Perhaps we can reach agreement and the Minister will be able to say that, on consideration, he will ensure that the Bill, if not amended in the terms that I put forward but by means of similar drafting, will eventually establish the fundamental right to be heard that should appear in this legislation.

Mr. Corbyn: I support new clause 7 and the amendments that are grouped with it. I do so with no great joy because they take up one of the issues that we debated at great length in Committee. We were concerned about the lack of proper rights to appeal for those seeking political asylum or any other sort of asylum, social, religious or whatever. I moved an amendment in Committee, with the support of others, which would have prevented the Home Secretary having the right to remove anyone from this country until all the legal avenues open to him or her had been exhausted, including the European Court of Human Rights. It seems that we are in the unfortunate position where the hated Immigration Act 1971, which established the immigration appeal tribunal system, is the only legislation on which we can fall back to provide some avenue for appeal that is slightly better than that of an adjudicator.
I do not believe that the Government have acted in any great belief in the right of appeal. Instead, I believe that they are under pressure from the courts—court administrators and, no doubt, groups of High Court judges who get together for port at the end of their dinners to chat about these matters—which are concerned about the many judicial reviews that have been sought and the hearings that have been granted.
It is a condemnation of the United Kingdom's ability to allow those seeking asylum a proper avenue of legal appeal if the only route open to them is for their solicitor to ensure that an application for judicial review is heard. The system of judicial review was not set up for that. It is a long stop that has become the norm because there is nothing else open to applicants and those who represent them. We are

saying that those who are denied the right of asylum should at least have the opportunity to appear before the immigration trial tribunal. That is because it is better than no form of appeal and not because I think that it is an especially good system. It is not acceptable to have asylum applications dealt with in the present manner and in the way in which the Bill envisages.
Any form of justice should include the presumption of innocence and a separation of legal and judicial powers. My experience of immigration law and asylum law is that there is no presumption of innocence, especially in immigration law. There is no presumption at any stage in favour of the person who is seeking asylum in this country. There is a presumption against them that is contrary to the principles of English law. It leaves enormous powers in the hands of the Home Secretary, who has been ready to use them. One thinks of the poor teacher from Zaire who was disgracefully bundled out of this country, apparently lost in Charles de Gaulle airport, and was finally dumped back in Zaire—from which he had fled in great fear. All that was because the Home Secretary was not prepared to take action. One thinks also of the Tamils who were wrongfully deported to Sri Lanka. There were other instances in which the actions of the Home Office and of the Home Secretary in particular were found seriously wanting. The amendments will not right all those wrongs, but they provide an opportunity for the due process of law and for an appeal.
The alternative suggested by the Home Office is a series of adjudicators. I do not doubt that many of them will be well informed and well trained. However, the most well-informed and well-trained people are capable of making mistakes. The point at issue is how one can introduce checks and balances into a legal system that allows mistakes to be made without offering any chance of rectifying them. The Government's proposals provide no such opportunity, and the amendments will make a slight improvement to what is really a pretty squalid little Bill.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am prompted to speak against new clause 7 by the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). There is of course in the Bill a presumption against applicants for asylum. Everyone would concede that. The reason is that a large number of the people who make applications have already destroyed their identity documents.
As to the immigration appeal tribunal, the Bill has been brought before the House because that tribunal is swamped and is in administrative difficulties.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman should be more cautious before stating that
a large number of the people who make applications have already destroyed their identity documents.
Does he have any proof? That is not the case, and the hon. Gentleman should check the figures. Has he read all the applications that are claimed to be bogus, or does the hon. Gentleman rely—like the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—on the front page of the News of the World for his information?

Mr. Allason: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify that point. My understanding is that two thirds of those people arriving in the United Kingdom claiming asylum do so with forged, mutilated or no documents. It is in those circumstances that the Government have brought the Bill before the House,


which seems perfectly reasonable. The old system clearly cannot cope with the level of applicants, and to return to it would be absolutely dotty.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) rightly said that the central issue is the right of leave to appeal. That is why I registered surprise when we appeared to reach that aspect when debating the previous group of amendments. The amendments now before us deal primarily with the Bill's requirement that where an applicant's claim is rejected by the Home Office, and before he can make a full oral appeal, he must obtain leave from the adjudicator, who will decide from the papers whether to grant it.
In Committee, and when debating the previous group of amendments, 1 made it clear that the rule is necessary to avoid manifestly unfounded and third safe country claims introducing unnecessary delays into the system. In third country cases, speed is of the essence if we are to be sure that the third safe country will receive the applicant and consider his or her claim fully.

Mr. Corbyn: The third country aspect is referred to in more measured tones in the draft rules that the Minister published today. In Committee, I expressed concern that third countries might on the face of it appear safe, yet the reality of someone from parts of north Africa living in Paris or another major French city, given the degree of racist violence that is to be found there, might make France, for example, far from safe. Does the Minister concede that an apparently safe third country may not prove to be so for some individuals?

Mr. Lloyd: My prime consideration is whether an asylum claim will be properly heard under the terms of the UN convention. Some claims will be properly heard in a third country, but that may not be so in respect of some individuals from a particular country. We would not seek to return a person if we were not satisfied that a country had a proper system for considering asylum cases and that it would assess thoroughly the claim of the individual in question. We always refer third country cases to UKIAS, as the point of contact with the UNHCR in respect of such matters.
I cannot tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that reports of violence or discriminatory behaviour in a particular country would of themselves serve as a ground for never returning someone there as a third safe country. However, the totality of a person's claim, even in respect of a third safe country, is taken into account—and there is the right to seek leave to appeal before the adjudicator. If the adjudicator considers that there is an arguable reason for an individual believing that he or she would not receive reasonable treatment of the kind required under the United Nations convention in the third safe country, he would allow an appeal to be heard. That matter is for the adjudicator.
The original draft procedural rules made it clear that an adjudicator had to attend a full hearing unless he was satisfied that the applicant did not have an arguable case—that, even if all the applicant said was true, it still did not add up to a claim that could be argued even under the provisions of the 1951 convention. From the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood, it was clear that it was

dawning on him how low was the threshold in practice. Therefore, I do not accept that the Opposition's fears are justified.
If there is a soupcon of doubt in the adjudicator's mind that there is the beginning of a case that can be argued, he must go to an oral hearing. If a decision of the Home Office hinged on the applicant's credibility, the adjudicator would be compelled to permit an oral hearing. He could not say to himself, "I am not surprised that the Home Office turned down that individual, because I cannot imagine anyone believing his story." He could not refuse an oral hearing on that basis, but must allow one on the basis of the credibility of the individual and the tale that he told.
The adjudicator can refuse an oral hearing only if he is certain that, even if the applicant's story is true, it does not bring that individual into the ambit of the 1951 convention. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether that should not only be spelt out more fully in the procedural rules but—as it is crucial—be written into the primary legislation. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that it should. I am sorry that the wording is not ready for this stage, but it is the Government's intention to table an appropriate amendment in another place.
I hope that that will satisfy Opposition Members to some extent, especially as there is likely to be a further debate about the issue in the House of Commons. I feel that a filter should be available for claims that have no merit. I do not believe that we should allow appeal against a refusal of leave, given that such refusals will be issued only when there is no arguable case under the convention. If it were impossible to refuse a hearing on the papers, one of the Bill's purposes—its provision for manifestly unfounded applications to be dealt with speedily—would be undermined.
If, however, an adjudicator ignored the criteria that I have described—whose liberality has been recognised by the hon. Member for Norwood—and refused an oral hearing although an arguable case existed, that would be exactly the kind of circumstance on which judicial review would properly bite. I do not believe that it will come to that; but the provision is there lest an adjudicator interpret the requirements too narrowly.
Several amendments seek to ensure that appeals from the adjudicator to the tribunal are not confined to matters of law. I agree with that, but I do not think that such a provision should be contained in the legislation. The normal place for such measures is in the procedural rules, and the draft rules now include an amendment that widens the grounds to matters of fact. I do not believe, however, that the grounds for appeal to the High Court should be similarly widened; I think it right that appeals from the tribunal should still be confined to matters of law.

Mr. Patrick Ground: Have I understood my hon. Friend correctly? Is he saying that the provision previously contained in rule 5(7), which referred to those with no arguable claim for asylum, will now be contained in the body of the Act?

Mr. Lloyd: That is the Government's intention. I hoped that we would be able to discuss that provision tonight, but it will now be discussed in the other place; if it is accepted there, it will return to the House of Commons later.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested that the appeal rights had been brought under pressure by the requirements of the courts and the Government's desire for less judicial review. Certainly I hope that there will be less judicial review, but one of the main reasons for our proposals is the demonstrable unfairness of circumstances in which only some asylum seekers have the opportunity to appeal to an independent authority. Surely they should all have the same rights. Given our wish for a speedier process, the safeguard of an independent appeal system for everyone is especially important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is right: numbers have risen sharply. It is because of that increase that some of the measures in the Bill have been included. However, in so far as the burden of proof mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North exists, it was not caused by the greater numbers. When someone arrives and asks for asylum, it is natural to say, "Tell me about your experiences; I must be satisfied that you are indeed seeking asylum." That will inevitably place some burden on the asylum seeker, but one reason for the section of the rules that deals with credibility—although it may not govern the eventual decision—is that it is fair to expect someone with a well-founded claim to wish to co-operate with the authorities, and to reveal as much as he can about himself, his origins and his case. It is up to him, in the first place, to explain why he is seeking asylum.

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend has mentioned the number of asylum seekers who arrive with mutilated identity papers, or whose papers have been destroyed. What is the proportion?

Mr. Lloyd: About two thirds of those who seek asylum at the ports, who themselves constitute about a quarter, or perhaps a third, of asylum seekers. The figure currently runs at 10,000 to 12,000 a year. Naturally, we ask why the people concerned have no papers, or why their papers have been mutilated, and in many cases they give convincing answers: indeed, their explanations may well enhance their credibility. It is reasonable, however, for us to make inquiries, to take the answers into account and to spell out the requirements in the rules, as we have always done.

Mr. Corbyn: The Immigration (Carrier's Liability) Act 1987 recognises that some people fleeing persecution are forced to destroy their real identity and to seek a false identity. Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office does not intend to depart from the recognition that people who are fleeing for their safety may have no alternative but to destroy their identity, and travel with forged documents?

Mr. Lloyd: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. No one who has arrived with mutilated documents, or without documents, will ever be refused asylum in this country. As I have said, however, such people will be asked for an explanation. The answer may well affect their credibility: it may enhance that credibility, but it will often do the opposite.

Mr. Tim Janman: One of the main reasons for the Bill is the massive increase over the past two or three years in the number of people either seeking entry on the basis of being asylum seekers, or entering with a

visitor's or student's visa and, after six or nine months, deciding—lo and behold!—that they are really political refugees.
As the Bill acknowledges, it is essential to provide guaranteed safeguards to ensure that the applications of genuine political refugees are examined properly and—if proved to be genuine—dealt with accordingly. It is equally essential to provide a fast-track procedure to identify and weed out the vast majority of the people who constitute that increase in numbers—those who could not be thought other than thoroughly bogus except by fatuous do-gooders. Such people do a great disservice to genuine applicants for political refugee status.

Mr. Boateng: The genuine tone and flavour of the hon. Gentleman's remarks are as we would expect, given his pedigree in this regard. It is not clear, however, to which amendment he is directing them.

Mr. Janman: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I was in the middle of saying that it is important to establish procedures that will provide safeguards for genuine applications.

Mr. Boateng: To which amendment does the hon. Gentleman refer?

8 pm

Mr. Janman: I am speaking to all the amendments that the House is currently considering. The hon. Gentleman will soon learn that my comments are about the collective impact of the amendments that the Labour party has tabled. I do not wish to get bogged down in the technical legalities of any particular amendment. The point that I was seeking to make when I gave way to the hon. Gentleman was that it is important that a mechanism should be put in place that ensures that the vast majority of applications that are clearly bogus can be weeded out effectively, efficiently and quickly. If that is not done, genuine applicants will have to wait much longer, and will be caught up in a massive queue.
The Labour party is being as deceitful as ever. A general election is looming. The vast majority of ordinary working men and women, whom the Labour party purports to represent, are in favour of the provisions of the Bill and the new immigration rules that will also come into force. However, rather than just stand up and say, "We oppose the Bill because we want the outrageous things that have been going on during the last two or three years to continue," the Labour party has tabled amendments that look very nice on paper but whose effect, if they were accepted by the Government, would be to drive a coach and horses through the required changes that the Bill will bring about.
If the amendments were accepted, we would end up maintaining a long-drawn-out appeals procedure for all these bogus applicants. They would be able to keep on appealing and we would be unable, therefore, to weed out quickly any bogus applications. We would therefore be unable to reduce the massive backlog of genuine applications.
We know what these people do while their cases go on and on. Either they disappear into the inner depths of Birmingham or Bradford or wherever, or they meet and marry a British citizen, thereby bringing a new arrow into their armoury when it comes to arguing their case for being


allowed to remain in Britain, having entered this country in the first place by means of deceit and lies when they reached the port of entry.
I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that the amendments should be resisted and treated with the contempt they deserve. They would undo the objective of the Bill, which is to deal with a very serious problem about which many of my constituents and, I am sure, people in general are becoming increasingly concerned. They expect the Government to plug the gap. I am pleased to see that they are plugging it. I note that, once again, the Labour party is trying to prevent measures being taken to sort out a problem that worries millions of people in this country.

Mr. Fraser: I shall not respond to what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) has just said, except in one respect. He said that he wanted a fast track procedure to get rid of undesirable people. That fast track procedure is on its way in Thurrock. It is called the general election.

Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I hold my seat at the next election, I am sure that his party will have to choose a new candidate for the following election.

Mr. Fraser: I was referring not to the hon. Gentleman's opponent but to him.
I have an unpleasant surprise for the hon. Gentleman. He urged the Minister to resist the amendments. I intend to ask the leave of the House to withdraw them. The Minister has practically met the point that we made by means of two very important concessions. He intends to table an amendment in another place to deal with the matters that he outlined in his speech. If the amendment has the effect that the Minister said it would have, it will go a very long way towards meeting our point. It will ensure that, in practice, virtually every applicant for political asylum will be given an oral hearing. That is what we want. That is what I believe the Under-Secretary of State will give us. We shall have the opportunity to examine the matter again when the Bill returns here. We have almost got together on this issue.
In addition, there are the substantial changes that were set out by the Under-Secretary of State. They are described in the draft rules governing appeals to the immigration appeal tribunal.
I am grateful, for the time being, for the concessions that have been promised by the Under-Secretary of State. I am sorry to have disappointed the hon. Member for Thurrock.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

THE CONVENTION, CLAIMS FOR ASYLUM AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'(1A) Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28.

Mr. Lloyd: Some concern was expressed in Committee about the definition of an asylum seeker being linked to the recording of a claim. There was considerable suspicion about what that meant. I explained in Committee that it was relevant only to clause 2 on fingerprinting and to clause 3 on housing and that there was no question of failing to treat someone as an asylum seeker and of denying access to the normal determination system on the pretext that the claim had not been recorded. I undertook to consider whether that could be clarified by means of a change of wording. I am happy to move the amendment. I believe that all these amendments will do just that.
An asylum seeker will no longer be defined generally. Specific provisions are included in clauses 2 and 3, where they are needed. The concept of recording is now clearly limited—as it was, in practice, limited before—to the housing provisions of the Bill. It is essential for the proper handling of inquiries from local authorities that changes in entitlement, which no doubt we shall debate in the next group of amendments, should be triggered by information that is made available unequivocally from a central point in the Home Office. The result will be the same as that which was provided for in the initial wording, but I hope that hon. Members will find that the wording is now considerably clearer. Although it is still fairly complicated, it is now much easier to follow than before.
I ought to draw the attention of the House to one side effect of the change. It will benefit asylum seekers in a very small way when it comes to the fingerprinting power. The power to fingerprint will cease not when the asylum seeker has his name taken off the record but when the asylum application has been either decided or withdrawn. There will be no delay on account of having to wait until a record has been made of one or other of those outcomes.
I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by hon. Members. They clarify what led to a considerable discussion in Committee.

Mr. Corbyn: I want to deal with some of the points raised by the Under-Secretary. First, let me deal with the recording of information at the point when the person becomes an asylum applicant. The procedure now is that they apply and are interviewed and a file is made up which, at some point, arrives at the central registration. At what point are such people considered to be asylum applicants? If there is a delay in obtaining the information at the recording point and its being received at Home Office, that can cause problems for applicants or their families when they seek, as is their right, income support or housing benefit payments. That can cause difficulties for the families concerned, because, inevitably, people who arrive here seeking political asylum tend to be extremely poor or even destitute. I raise this matter because I know from experience that Kurdish people with whose cases I have been dealing have been unable to obtain income support payments for months because of that difficulty.
I am concerned also about the security of the information. As the Under-Secretary said, we shall he debating this later in the section dealing with housing. Information about someone seeking political asylum can be of interest to the regime from which the person is fleeing. Some years ago asylum applicants from Iraq faced


activities by agents of the Iraqi forces who attempted to attack them physically. Therefore, the security of the information and who has access to it are important matters. If, in that context, housing departments around the country are to be required to check with the Home Office whether an applicant has been recorded and is an asylum seeker, due care must be taken to ensure that the information is being passed to a proper representative of the local authority and not to somebody ringing up purporting to be such a representative. I know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment may deal with that later.
In Committee we discussed the fingerprinting of asylum applicants, which is something that I and many of my colleagues find distasteful. Can we be assured that the fingerprinting will be kept entirely separate from any criminal records held by the police or the Home Office? At what stage are children too young for fingerprinting? The Minister refused to be drawn on that in Committee. He merely said that, where appropriate, older children will be fingerprinted. He did not give a minimum age limit below which that would not happen. This is an obnoxious section of the Bill and I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with those points.

Mr. Darling: The terms of amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are generally welcome and acceptable and are in line with the amendments that we tabled in Committee. However, in light of the amendments, can the Minister tell us when someone becomes an asylum seeker? Is it when the claim is lodged or at some other time? Logically, in terms of clause 1, it would be when the application is lodged.
When does someone cease to be an asylum seeker? It is clear from amendment No. 27 that it is when the claim has been "finally determined or abandoned". Would that apply universally throughout the Bill? That is not just important for housing; other matters may arise when it may be relevant to know whether someone is an asylum seeker.
Amendment No. 28 is not as welcome, because it is adding rather than subtracting from the terms of clause 3. The result is that people cannot be considered for housing under clause 3 until their claim is recorded. In other words, it is the same as the provision in clause 1. The guidance notes to which I referred earlier say in paragraph 9:
Where applications are forwarded from the ports or submitted by post there may be a delay of several days before the application reaches the Asylum Division for initial assessment. During this period the asylum applicant is protected by the provisions of the 1951 UN Convention and may not be removed from the country. At the point at which the Asylum Division consider the documents and determine that an asylum claim has been made, the claim will be deemed to be 'recorded' by the Home Office.
In other words, there may be a delay of several days—in Home Office talk that is a euphemism for a considerable time—in some cases.
8.15 pm
That is relevant in that if someone seeking housing is not an asylum seeker within the meaning of the Act—as it will be—they will not be housed. As we said in Committee, I understand the Government's anxiety to deter people and make life as difficult and unpleasant as possible—the Government made that clear in Committee—but once they are here and have submitted a claim, we cannot expect

them to sleep on the streets. We must house them somewhere. I am concerned that amendment No. 28 may cause undesirable difficulties. The Under-Secretary will tell us whether those difficulties are intended. Unless he can assure us that the Home Office is likely to speed up its recording procedures, the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will remain. Will the Under-Secretary comment on that?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: There is in practice no addition to clause 3. There may be an increase in the number of words in the clause, but they will have their effect from the distance of clause 1(2). There is no change in effect, but I believe that the clause will read more clearly. I was seeking to achieve that greater clarity.
The recording for asylum seeking is relevant only for fingerprinting and housing. We debated these matters for a considerable time in Committee when I was seeking to reassure Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), that the use of the word "recorded" affects only the power to diminish the housing right by giving greater flexibility to the local authority and would set a term for when it is lawful for fingerprints to be required. It has no effect on the individual's right to have their case considered in this country or their right not to be returned to the country in which they say they have a well-founded fear of persecution. The protection of the United Nations convention is available to them as soon as they say that they want to seek asylum. We should not muddle things up. It must be put in the Bill so that there is a central list that local authorities know is authoritative. There is a delay of a day or two or longer before someone is accepted and given temporary admission as an asylum seeker and put on that central list. It does not undermine their rights under the United Nations convention or the Secretary of State's obligation to them.
The hon. Member for Islington, North asked about security. That is important and it was raised in Committee. Care must be taken that the knowledge that somebody has applied for asylum is not divulged to people who ought not to know it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to add to what I have said. I think that what we—the Department of the Environment and the Home Office—are now considering will mean that communication on such issues will have to be by post. Although it may be slower, it is more secure, because the information would at least be directed to the people who should properly have it and who, it is reasonable to expect, will regard it with confidentiality as they do the numerous other pieces of confidential information that come their way in local authority departments.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether fingerprinting records will be kept separate—I think that he said "separate from the police". They will certainly be kept separately and will be available only—generally—for the purposes of the asylum division. However, if we receive proper inquiries in proper conditions from the police about an individual whose records we have, they will be made available to the police in the fight against crime. That is the case with any other information that the Home Office properly holds and it is what any other Government Department does and, indeed, what any other organisation would do. However, the records will not be part of the police's normal records and we would not expect to give


any other organisation—including the police—general access to them, but we shall respond when legitimate and proper requests are made to us by legitimate and proper authorities including, of course, the police.
The hon. Member for Islington, North also asked about the fingerprinting of children. We seek to take powers in the Bill to fingerprint every asylum seeker, including children. As I said in Committee, we do not look to take fingerprints of young children—I shall not say how young such children would be because it would depend on the circumstances. I hope that it will be done as seldom as possible, but the reasons why we need the power are threefold.
First, there can be an argument about whether a young person coming into this country is under 17 or under 18 or over 18 or over 19. Such a power would avoid that debate. Secondly, as has been said, children can come into the country by themselves and I think that it is right in such circumstances that we at least have the power to fingerprint them.
There is a third set of circumstances in which such a power might be useful, so it is sensible to take the power now in primary legislation. There is some evidence of fraud by those who seek asylum under different names moving children between them. Some asylum applicants claim for other people's children. It is necessary for us at least to have the power to take fingerprints to connect particular children to particular adults for reasons of social security fraud and so that when children are brought in at ports and, as the evidence sometimes suggests, abandoned, we may find it necessary to fingerprint children so that they can be connected to particular adults.
We do not want to fingerprint children—especially young ones—but I regret that it is a power which we must take. We shall have to see how our new tighter measures work and what they reveal in the way of difficulties before we decide administratively whether they should be used and, if so, how.

Mr. Madden: The Minister is well aware of the widely held view that the act of fingerprinting inevitably criminalises the person seeking political asylum and that it is offensive, especially when applied to young people and to children. In Committee, the Minister resisted an age limit. We were pressing that no young person under the age of 18 should be fingerprinted, but the Minister made it clear that it would be left to the discretion of immigration officers. Will he reconsider, because many of us believe that the offence would be reduced if there were a clear rule that no child below a certain age should be fingerprinted in any circumstances?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman covers many of the issues with which I have just dealt. I know that there is a feeling that the taking of fingerprints somehow criminalises, but that view is peculiar to this country. It is a normal method of identification in other countries and it is, of course, the effective way which is available to us. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would object to our having pictures of every asylum seeker, but it is difficult to check 60,000 pictures. However, 60,000 fingerprints can easily be matched, collated and compared by experts. The hon. Gentleman is inviting us to abandon the one method which would enable us to check multiple claims, which will

either catch people who are being dishonest or clear the names of the vast numbers of asylum seekers who are entirely honest.
The taking of fingerprints is a much more sensible, speedy and comfortable way to ensure that we have a proper record of who an individual is and to connect him with a particular time of entry and to discover with whom he entered than the lengthy inquisitorial questionnaires for trying to establish names and relationships, especially of a group of tired asylum seekers who have arrived at Heathrow late at night.
I understand the objection to fingerprinting, but there is no objection when it is common practice for every asylum seeker to be fingerprinted. The objection is emotional—although understandably so—rather than realistic and practical.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

HOUSING

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 3, leave out from 'and' to end of line 4 and insert 'informs the housing authority dealing with his application—'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments:
No. 22, in page 3, leave out line 19 and insert—
'(a) are informed by the applicant that he is an asylum-seeker, but'.
No. 13, in page 3, line 31, after 'accommodation', insert
'and his circumstances were the same as when the original application was made;'.
No. 15, in page 4, line 23, at end add—
'(9) For the purposes of subsection (l)(b) above "available"—

(a) shall only include accommodation occupied at the time an application is made; and
(b) accommodation currently occupied shall not qualify as being "available" unless it is available for more than 28 days.'.

No. 14, in page 4, line 23, at end add—
'(9) For the purposes of this section accommodation "however temporary" shall not include accommodation at present occupied where an applicant under Part III of the Housing Act 1985 is threatened with homelessness within 28 days from the date of his application.'.
No. 23, in schedule 1, page 8, line 5, leave out from 'made' to 'They' and insert
'are informed by the applicant that he is an asylum-seeker'.
No. 24, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'or is not'.
No. 17, in page 9, leave out lines 15 to 19 and insert
'which the applicant receives notification under section 64 of the Housing Act 1985.'.
No. 18, in page 9, line 29, after 'requested', insert 'in
writing'.
No. 19, in page 9, line 36, leave out first 'an' and insert 'a housing'.
No. 20, in page 9, line 38, after Inform', insert 'both'.

Mr. Fraser: This is a large group of amendments and the proposals are not all the same, so I shall break down the group.
Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 would remove from local authorities any duty to make inquiries about whether someone was a seeker of political asylum. Of course, if a local authority in the course of its ordinary homelessness inquiries becomes aware that a person is seeking political asylum, and if the facts behind his


application for that asylum—that is the circumstances under which he gave up his previous home and in which he now claims to be homeless—are similar to those made in a claim for political asylum, his application for asylum becomes relevant. However, we think that such a duty is unhealthy and we know that the local authorities do not want such a task, which is effectively a duty to ask to see people's passports and to inquire about the immigration status of those asking for housing, to be placed on the housing list or for accommodation for the homeless.
There are several reasons for our approach. One is that local authorities already feel that they are overburdened with administrative problems and they are not asking for—indeed, they are resisting—these proposals. Another reason is that, once a duty has been placed on a local authority to inquire about the immigration status of an applicant, one creates distrust and bad feeling among those who will be resident in the neighbourhood, often for many years. We all know from our constituency experience that some people find it offensive to be questioned about their immigration status, especially when they were born and bred in this country, but, because of the colour of their skin or the pronunciation of their name, inquiries about their problems begin with questions about their status as immigrants rather than with the merits of their application for housing. We believe that such matters should be decided on the merits of the housing applications; that is when inquiries should begin. Investigations should not commence with examination of passports and inquiries about immigration status.
Once the facts have come to the attention of the local authorities it is up to them to take decisions about how to cope with housing requirements. Some local authorities will be so hard pressed to cope with homelessness that they may well feel that they cannot assist political asylum seekers whose claims have not yet been decided. However, some local authorities have a surplus of accommodation and may find—particularly if they have empty properties—that it is cheaper to deal with applications for temporary shelter by placing claimants in permanent accommodation as that will provide a rental income. That will prove cheaper than if authorities are forced to place applicants in temporary accommodation, as the Bill seems to do. Therefore, the measure should be resisted as it is the merits of housing applications that should be considered, not the technicalities of political asylum applications.
8.30 pm
Amendment No. 13 provides that, if the Home Office grants political asylum, the applicant's priority for housing relates back to when the application was first made. Under the Bill, someone could make an application to be treated as a homeless person and the application might be put on ice until the claim for political asylum status was determined. Once that has happened, as I interpret the Bill, consideration of the application will have to start again. Our amendment makes it clear that the priority of the application must relate to when the application for housing was first made, not when the Home Office or any other adjudicator made a decision about the political asylum application on appeal.
Amendment Nos. 15 and 14 deal with temporary accommodation. The view, not just of Opposition Committee Members, but of almost every social housing

agency, is that the way that the Bill disqualifies an application from consideration by a local authority on temporary accommodation grounds is disgraceful. It is difficult to understand how the Government could have included words in the Bill that mean that a political asylum claimant is disqualified from receiving assistance from a local authority if he or she is in housing, however temporarily. Many people have commented on the fact that, if claimants have obtained accommodation in a church hall or are sleeping in a hall, or on a settee in an overcrowded flat, they will be disqualified from consideration by the local authority because they are deemed to be in temporary accommodation. That is disgraceful, and such proposals should be removed from the Bill.
Therefore, amendment No. 15 seeks to modify that obnoxious provision and would allow the political asylum applicant at least to qualify for temporary housing from the local authority when the accommodation that they are currently using is so insecure that it could disappear within 28 days of the application being made. Surely that minimum requirement should be built into the Bill. Amendment No. 14 has a similar affect to amendment No. 15.
We tabled amendment No. 17 because we believe that there is no need to mix landlord and tenant law with immigration law, which is exactly what the Bill does. It states that a person cannot have a secured or assured tenancy within a specified period of an application for political asylum.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 are comparatively minor drafting amendments. As the Bill stands, notices to applicants for political asylum do not have to be given in writing, and we propose to insert the word "writing".
Amendment No. 19 corrects what we believe to be a drafting error. While most of this part of the Bill refers to a housing authority, the word "housing" has been dropped in one place. At the heart of the amendments lies the proposition that, if someone is in need of housing, a hard-pressed local authority will not generally be able initially to meet that need with permanent accommodation. The local authority may take up to one year to decide whether the applicant qualifies for priority housing under homelessness legislation. That one-year period should be roughly the same as the time within which the Home Office—if it is to act efficiently—decides on the political asylum application. There should be no conflict between the time scale of the Home Office and that of the local authority.
However, if the Home Office spends—as it currently does—year after year considering applications for political asylum, and if we wish to act as a civilised country, we should not abandon a claim for accommodation for so long, which is what the Bill would do. Our proposals seek to cure that problem.
It is not only the Opposition who have criticised the Bill. We recently received a brief from the National Federation of Housing Associations which provided an adequate answer to the argument made by the Minister in Committee that one purpose of the legislation was to stop political asylum claimants exercising the right to buy. As the Minister will know, those in assured tenancies have no right to buy. In other cases, secured tenants have to reside in their accommodation for at least two years before they can exercise that right. Preventing claimants from exercising such a right seems a thin reason for justifying the Bill's provisions.
Housing associations and, I am sure, local authorities are reluctant to be forced into terminating tenancies and evicting people who have had applications for political asylum turned down. If applications are refused, applicants will eventually be required to leave the country. That matter should properly be left to immigration law; it should not constitute part of housing law.
I hope that the Minister will realise the anxiety that the provisions have caused, not just to applicants but to those who administer social housing and council housing. I hope that, even at this late stage, the thought that lies behind the amendments, if not the amendments, will be accepted.

Mr. Boateng: I support this group of amendments. Central to the concept of asylum is the notion of shelter, sanctuary and refuge. We cannot hope to fulfil the spirit and letter of international conventions on refugees unless we, as a receiving nation for refugees, accept responsibility for their shelter. That is a basic requirement, not only of international law, but of common humanity.
The amendments seek to mitigate clause 3, which strikes at the notion of giving shelter and respite to those driven from their homes by political upheaval. It does so in the most obnoxious way. It is discriminatory and we have yet to hear any convincing response from Conservative Members, the Department of the Environment or the Home Office to the charge laid at their doors by the Commission for Racial Equality that the clause is discriminatory in law.
Also—this is important—the clause seeks to confuse the role of housing authorities and the role of those with responsibility properly to regulate immigration in this country. It gives housing officers an invidious role and means that hard-pressed local authorities which are already struggling with a range of problems have to take on responsibility for an aspect of internal immigration control. That is not good enough.
It is offensive also because it puts in an intolerable position those organisations in our society that seek to meet the needs of refugees. Let me give a practical example of how the proposed law would undermine the work of the many voluntary organisations that are concerned with the refugee problem. Some time ago my own church—the Methodist church in Harlesden—took on responsibility for a number of Kurdish families who were in a crisis. The families had arrived recently and dreaded homelessness. Harlesden Methodist church is not rich, and it is in a deprived area of London, yet it took on responsibility for those Kurds.
What will happen when people housed in Church premises or temporarily in the homes of local church people apply to a local authority? Under this legislation as drafted, they will fall foul of the law. It is worth looking in detail at the wording of clause 3, under which such people cannot be deemed to be homeless because accommodation, however temporary, is available to them.
I should like the Minister to be able to tell me that my interpretation of clause 3 is wrong, that refugees such as those that the Harlesden Methodist church could not possibly house indefinitely would not, under this legislation, lose their right to local authority housing. The view that I am expressing is that not just of the Opposition but also of the Housing Law Practitioners' Association, the Law Society and the Children's Legal Centre—professional bodies that deal with housing issues day in and day out. Their reading of the legislation as drafted is

that such persons would lose the right to local authority housing. In the sort of society that we hold this one to be, that cannot be right.
There is a question that this House will have to address in all seriousness: in those circumstances, what is the moral distinction between our treatment of Kurdish refugees—this being a relatively prosperous, secure and stable society—and the Turkish Government's treatment of the Kurds whom they allow to rot on their mountainsides? It is quite clear that there is a distinction in terms of scale, but what is the moral distinction? We could do better, and we ought to do better. All that these amendments seek to achieve is a situation in which applicants for refugee status are treated in the same way as all other applicants for housing. That is all that is asked. We are not asking that such people be given special treatment or any advantage.
What is particularly offensive about this clause in an abhorrent piece of legislation is that it is so blatantly discriminatory, so blatantly unequal. It seeks to achieve a purpose of which we ought to be ashamed. It seeks to make life that much more unpleasant for refugees in this country. It seeks to make life that much more intolerable for them as a group, presumably for the purpose—and it is a squalid and shameful purpose—of deterring people from fleeing to this country. That is the only interpretation that any objective reader can put on this legislation, and it is one that, for the sake of this House and of the nation, we must address.
Over many years, this country has established a tradition of receiving refugees, and, in general, we do not have much to apologise for. The tradition has been a bit battered and skimping of late, but it is still markedly better than that of many other countries. Even at this late stage, we must seek to avoid undermining it as fundamentally as this legislation would do. By the blanket way in which, in terms of housing, it treats applicants for refugee status, it puts us in danger of breaching our international treaty obligations under article 19(4)(c) of the Council of Europe social charter and of convention No. 97 of the International Labour Organisation. The Bill would put us in danger of breaching those provisions of international law.

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend does not exaggerate at all. In Committee, we gained the impression that, as a result of these amendments, the Government will be forced to denounce those conventions.

Mr. Boateng: The situation is as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).

Mr. Mike Watson: Shame.

Mr. Boateng: I agree with my hon. Friend, to whose contribution we look forward—it is a shame. The British Government's representatives in the Council of Europe, the International Labour Organisation and the other bodies that have been mentioned are being put in a position that no representative of this country ought to be put in. This is against the letter of international law, but, above all, it is against the spirit that we in this House ought to cherish.
The Government say that asylum ought to be about shelter, about respite, but this obnoxious clause undermines that whole concept, and we should reject it by adopting these amendments. The Government can be sure


that, if it is not rejected here and now, we shall return to the matter in the aftermath of the general election, and that the provisions will then be rejected resoundingly.

Mr. Watson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), in his typically eloquent and forceful manner, has said, this is an obnoxious piece of legislation. Particularly obnoxious is clause 3, to which these amendments relate. The introduction of this provision marks the first occasion since the introduction of legislation on homelessness on which a particular group of people has been singled out for the application of a lower level of rights than is enjoyed by anyone else in the country. It treats all asylum seekers as a guilty group. It requires them to prove their innocence before they can have a roof over their heads.
The same thing applies to the regulations that accompany the Bill. They too treat these people as guilty by providing that, immediately on entry to the country, they may, against their will, be held in a detention centre and fingerprinted. To my mind, the Minister has not allayed our misgivings about fingerprinting. I wish to underline the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South.
Housing should have no place in the Bill. There is no need for clause 3. People awaiting a decision on whether they are to be classified as genuine asylum seekers should enjoy the same rights as anyone without a roof over his head who presents himself to a local authority as homeless.
A whole raft of organisations have made just that point to the Home Secretary, but apparently to no avail. I am talking about a group of highly respected organisations—Shelter, the Shelter Housing Aid Committee, the London Housing Aid Group, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Law Society, the National Federation of Housing Associations, the British Refugee Council, and so on. Those organisations are experienced campaigners in such matters and at looking after people who find themselves in the near-impossible position of not having a home, yet their opinions have been ignored, as have those of the Commission for Racial Equality, which has stated unequivocally that it believes clause 3 to be racially discriminatory and
in direct conflict with all existing statutory guidance on the homeless and race relations legislation.
Coming from a Government-funded body, that is a serious charge, but it has been quite simply denied by the Government with the brush of a hand. The Government's position has not been explained or defended. No one is convinced. The Government need not think that they are off the hook. If the Bill becomes law, a number of organisations—not least the Commission for Racial Equality—will continue to do their job and expose its pernicious nature.
A thinly disguised vein of racism runs right through the Bill. It is a bit like a stick of Blackpool rock in that respect. Throughout the Bill, interspersed with apparently reasonable propositions are entirely unreasonable and racially motivated proposals. In the case of clause 3, the racial aspect is not even thinly disguised.
Throughout the Bill, the Government's assumption is that most, if not all, asylum seekers are really economic refugees—people with little to fear, who simply want to find a better standard of living in this country than exists

in their own. For generations, many of my fellow Scots have chosen to emigrate to Canada, Australia or New Zealand in search of a better standard of living. The Government tend to view asylum seekers in similar terms, but the parallel is a fallacy.
If any proof were needed, the Government's own figures assist in demolishing the argument. Since 1980, 83 per cent. of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom have come from nine countries—Ethiopia, Ghana, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Poland, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Uganda. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that all those countries have a recent history of political oppression or civil war. That is no coincidence, and it renders it even less likely—if it was ever likely—that people from those countries simply fancy a better standard of living and so present themselves on our doorstep.
That fallacy is undermined again by a Home Office paper produced in June 1990, listing those countries or territorial entities whose nationals or citizens need visas for the United Kingdom. Of a total of 77 countries, only seven are countries where the population is predominantly white. They are Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union. Since the list was issued, Uganda and Jamaica have been added. The import of that is perfectly clear. Even if the Government could convince us that the intent of that list published by the Home Office was not racist—I maintain that they have failed to do so—they cannot escape culpability, because the effect of the legislation is racist. The same is true of clause 3 of the present Bill.
The amendment would rid the Bill of what I believe to be a major block, and would at the same time ensure that parity of housing treatment was afforded to asylum seekers. There is no reason why they should not enjoy that right. The Government should accept the amendments outlined in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), first, to ensure that the current situation under the homelessness legislation—whereby applications from asylum seekers and other homeless applicants are treated equally—was maintained. That has been the position until now, and there is no reason why it should not continue to be the position.
That should apply even before the Home Office decision on refugee status has been made. When asylum seekers have crossed that hurdle, they find another immediately facing them. They continue to face discrimination, being required to wait 12 months before enjoying a secure assured tenancy in the way that other homeless applicants do when they are granted accommodation. Surely that cannot be justified, and the Under-Secretary should have the good sense and good grace to admit it when he answers the debate.
Finally, local authorities should have the freedom to assess homeless applicants on the basis of housing need alone. That is the thrust of the legislation introduced as a result of great need throughout the country. Under the Bill as drafted, however, housing authorities will be forced to make the decision on the basis of having sought clearance from the Home Office on the status of the claimant. Surely, unless the claimant actually chooses to disclose the fact that he is seeking asylum, there is absolutely no need for that information to be passed to the housing authority attempting to house that person.
If the Government fail to accept the amendments, they will continue to stand accused, and rightly so, of introducing a Bill which, at best, is discriminatory and, at


worst, racist. I repeat that clause 3 is completely unnecessary and will not even assist in achieving what the Government claim to intend. The amendments represent an attempt to rid the Bill of some of its most pernicious provisions. If the Under-Secretary refuses to accept them, he will be sending a clear and, I say, shameful message to the rest of the world about the status of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Corbyn: I fully endorse the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Having sat through much discussion of the matter in Committee, I think that this is a shabby and nasty clause. If the homeless persons legislation can be altered in this underhand manner, what will happen next? If the Bill goes through in its present form and asylum seekers are no longer entitled to permanent housing, it will overturn the principle of the homeless persons legislation, dating from 1977, which was the principle of universal access to housing for those in housing need. The Bill will defeat and weaken that principle. What might the next stage be? I do not know what goes on in the minds of those who draft Bills such as this, which further restrict the right to public sector housing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said, when asylum seekers arrive, they are admitted and their case is then processed. I know from experience that processing can take several years. Some of the cases with which I am dealing have been with the Home Office for many years—five years or more—yet clause 3 provides that asylum seekers can be housed only in temporary accommodation by local authorities. In my local authority area, if they are lucky, "temporary housing" means a property that the council has leased, usually for six months to a year at a time, so each six months to a year that family would have to move. I said, "if they are lucky" because that tends to involve a fairly reasonable standard of accommodation. If they are unlucky, it means hostel accommodation or bed and breakfast.
Who exactly is the Bill designed to punish? Has the Minister ever seen children growing up in bed-and-breakfast hotels? Has he seen the signs of depression among parents trying to keep a family together in a bed-and-breakfast room, looking every day at the same washstand, wondering whether breakfast would be any different that day from any other day, the lack of play space, the family rows that develop, and the enormous cost as well? The clause does not actually save any money—it costs a great deal more to local authorities. One wonders what the motive behind the Bill is, other than, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the punishment of asylum seekers who wish to obtain housing, having been admitted into this country.
In Committee, there was a fairly unusual set of circumstances in which hon. Members raised points of order about the way in which the clause contravened the Race Relations Act 1976. When it was pointed out that it appeared to be in contravention and that the Commission for Racial Equality, a statutory body, issued a statement to that effect, Law Officers were eventually unwillingly brought along to the Committee and forced to try to defend the position. They did not make a very good job of it. The CRE was established under the Race Relations Act 1976 specifically to attack discrimination in this country, be it by an employer who refuses to employ black people

or an institution that operates policies that systematically discriminate against a certain group of people. The Government are now adopting a policy in law which systematically discriminates against those who are seeking political asylum. I shall not repeat the facts that were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central in his excellent contribution, but he pointed out where most asylum seekers come from.
9 pm
What is to be the future relationship between local authorities, the Home Office and the immigration service? Were people appointed to work in local authority housing departments to be agents on which the Home Office could rely? A housing officer in a local authority, when interviewing a housing applicant, must ask whether he or she is an asylum seeker. A housing officer will not know, when a family walks through a door, whether they are asylum seekers. They will be seen as a family. Any black family who seek assistance from the local authority housing department will be asked to produce a passport or a form of identity so that a check can be made within the Home Office. There will be a system of passport checks or identity checks for non-white applicants or foreign applicants. That is how it will work. What does the Minister think that that will do to the relationship between local authority housing departments and those who require housing?
Local authority associations have pointed out the increased costs that the Bill puts on them. For authorities that actually have a surplus of or ready access to permanent housing, it is much more expensive to keep families in temporary accommodation than in permanent accommodation. But there is a moral case as well. The morality behind the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 was that society had a moral obligation to ensure that everyone in need—for example, those with dependent children, the elderly, or those at some risk—had a right to be housed. That Act represented an important step forward. This legislation, particularly coming from the Government's hand, is the start of the erosion of that principle.
Does the Minister honestly think that that is a fair, moral and just way of administering a housing policy or treating people who have come here to seek political asylum? I invite him to meet asylum applicants. They are not living very well; they fear being returned, and they are concerned about what has happened to their families. I deal with many asylum applicants. One sees the fear on the faces of those people. They know that their families are at risk in Somalia, Zaire, Uganda or wherever they have attempted to come from. They know that they may never see them again—obviously, they hope that they will. They know that they will be treated as second-class citizens. They receive 90 per cent. of income support instead of 100 per cent., again for no good reason other than as a form of punishment, and temporary housing, again for no good reason other than as a form of punishment.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South and I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister will be prepared to reconsider, in the light of all the representations, the strength of feeling and the declaration by the Commission for Racial Equality that clause 3 is wholly wrong, wholly misguided, immoral, and should be withdrawn.

Sir Timothy Raison: I do not entirely agree with the points that were made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but I am rather puzzled by one feature of this clause, and that is the statement in lines 25 and 26 on page 3. I do not understand why it states:
and, accordingly, so long as he remains an asylum-seeker, any need of his for accommodation shall be regarded as temporary only.
I do not understand why it is not enough simply to stop after the words
shall not continue after he ceases to be an asylum-seeker".
Is there any particular point in introducing at this stage the notion of "temporary" and in saying "shall" be regarded as temporary only instead of "may" be regarded? I should like to know why these two lines appear in the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I am glad to have the chance to reply to the debate. I think that it would be helpful if I took the opportunity, since the housing provisions were scarcely touched on in the Second Reading debate, to explore, before getting into the detail of the amendments, some of the principles behind the provisions in clause 3 and schedule 1 to the Bill.
The proposals modify the duties on local authorities under the homelessness legislation—part III of the Housing Act 1985—in relation to asylum seekers. The effect of the measures is to be fairer to a group of people who have not been referred to in this debate at all, that is, the people who are on the local authority waiting lists, a group of people about whom I am sufficiently concerned to see what effect this Bill has on them, although no one else who has spoken in the debate——

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Yeo: If I may develop the point a little more, I will give way in a moment.
It is important that we consider how the Bill affects those people whose right to permanent residence in this country is not in question and some of whom may have a long-standing connection with the area of the local authority on whose waiting list they remain. The effect of these measures will be to treat those people more fairly than they have been treated up to now, while continuing to give the protection that we all agree should be given to asylum seekers in genuine need.

Mr. Boateng: The Minister really ought not to take those who have contributed to the debate to task for neglecting the concerns of the people they represent in relation to the bloated and inflated housing lists and the housing deprivation in the areas that we represent. These are people that we see day in and day out. They are people about whom we write to his Department week in and week out. We are very concerned about them.
If he is concerned to do them justice, the Minister would do well to look at the practices of his own Department when it comes to grant-funding for local authority housing. He would do well to look at the disgrace of empty properties which his Department does nothing whatever to ameliorate before suggesting that we are not concerned about the people we represent. We are concerned about them; but, like them, we are also concerned about the fairness and equity of legislation that comes to the House—and the Minister should be concerned about that too.

Mr. Yeo: That intervention went on longer than I have been allowed to speak so far, but as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has made reference to empty properties perhaps I may point out that in his borough, while it was under Labour control, there were no fewer than 937 empty properties on 1 April last year; 5 per cent. of the housing stock run by Brent council was empty.

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Yeo: I am going to have some say in this debate.
Brent council had more uncollected rent than any other local authority in the whole of England and Wales—this was during the last year that it was under Labour control. I have no doubt that if it remains under Tory control long enough the figures will improve—they could hardly get worse. Forty-four per cent. of the rent—£15 million—was uncollected. So we need not take lessons from the hon. Member for Brent, South when we see what his Labour colleagues on that council did when in charge of the housing resources there.
I do not yield to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) one iota in my anxiety to get people out of unsatisfactory temporary accommodation, particularly bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I share his concern. It is precisely because I do that I find it deplorable that we have so many Labour-controlled local authorities with huge numbers of empty properties. There are more local authority properties in this country that have been empty for more than 12 months than there are families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
One way of helping to limit the extent to which people are placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is to ensure that those who have access to permanent accommodation in this country are people who have also established a permanent right to remain here.
Under the current homelessness legislation asylum seekers can qualify for permanent housing from a local authority if they meet the same tests as anyone else—that is if they are unintentionally homeless, or threatened with homelessness and in priority need. In general, this means families with children, pregnant women or those vulnerable for some other reason. In my view, and in the view of many other people, it is illogical that someone whose right to remain in the country permanently is still under question and has not been established can secure permanent accommodation in that way.
Current estimates are that up to 5,000 asylum-seeker families are likely to qualify for housing help under the homelessness legislation in this year alone. However, the absolute numbers, while disturbing, are not the overriding problem. The real problem is that those asylum seekers impose a disproportionate burden on certain local authorities, particularly in London, because asylum seekers tend to concentrate either at the point of arrival or in areas where there is a refugee community already established. Some local authorities are having to accept a duty to secure housing for 250 or more asylum-seeker households a year. That exacerbates existing housing pressures and means that local people on waiting lists will have an even longer wait for permanent housing.
Under our measures we propose two extra tests for asylum seekers who are waiting for their asylum applications to be decided. First, do they have reasonable


accommodation at the moment, even if it is only temporary? Secondly, is there any other accommodation they could reasonably go to?
The Bill provides that, if they meet all these tests, the local authority has to provide only temporary accommodation until the asylum application is decided. It will be up to the local authority to decide how to fulfil its duty to provide temporary accommodation, which might be a short-term tenancy in its permanent stock.
I should like to correct a recurring misconception that has been repeated this evening by the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Islington, North—that requiring an authority to provide only temporary accommodation to an asylum seeker does not mean that that asylum seeker must be placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As a matter of fact, it does not mean even that the local authority has to put such a person in temporary accommodation. The local authority has discretion, which it can use, to put that person in permanent accommodation if it so wishes. If it desires—

Sir Timothy Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again because this is exactly the point that I have been trying to raise. I repeat that lines 25 and 26 of clause 3 state:
accordingly, so long as he remains an asylum-seeker, any need of his for accommodation shall be regarded as temporary only.
I thought that my hon. Friend said that the local authority could provide temporary accommodation, or whatever form of accommodation it wanted; but that is not what the Bill says.

Mr. Yeo: I would have come to my right hon. Friend's point in due course but, as he has raised it now, I shall deal with it now. The lines to which he has referred are intended to make it clear that by providing accommodation on a temporary basis the local authority will, indeed, be fulfilling its statutory duty to the asylum seeker, but the Bill does not compel the local authority to provide only temporary accommodation. If it wishes, it can use its discretion to do more than that and to offer permanent accommodation. We are simply saying that, to satisfy its statutory responsibility, it will be sufficient for the local authority to offer only temporary accommodation to the asylum seeker.

Sir Timothy Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but I urge him to look again at those words because they do not seem to match what he has been saying. I still think that the paragraph could have ended at the beginning of line 25 with the word "seeker". I still cannot see the point of the remaining words.

Mr. Yeo: I know that my right hon. Friend has a close interest in housing and remember that he participated in the last housing debate in which I spoke. I shall certainly look again at the wording, but I am quite clear about our intentions. If our intentions are satisfied by the wording as it stands, we would not wish to alter it. The intention is to make it clear to a local authority that it has no duty further than the provision of temporary accommodation to an applicant for housing who is an asylum seeker. It has discretion to go further than that, but no duty to do so. If the wording to which my right hon. Friend has referred does not achieve that, I will of course look at it again.

Mr. Fraser: Surely the reluctance to allow the local authority discretion is also reflected in paragraph 5 of schedule 1, which says that the accommodation, if the local authority chooses to provide it, cannot be secure for within one year of offering the accommodation. Does that not reinforce the point made by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Yeo: No. The answer is the same. The Bill is designed to make clear the local authority's statutory obligation. It is, as I have said, to provide temporary accommodation. If the local authority, in its own discretion, chooses to go further than that, it will be free to do so. This is just setting out what the minimum provision by the local authority has to be in order to satisfy its statutory responsibilities.
I return to the misconception, which was repeated by the hon. Members for Norwood and for Islington, North, that temporary accommodation means bed and breakfast. I was very glad to have the acknowledgement of several Opposition Members that there are local authorities with a surplus of accommodation; they do not always acknowledge that quite so readily. Unfortunately, in practice, not many of the areas with large numbers of asylum seekers coincide with areas where there are surpluses. Nevertheless, it is nice to have the recognition that they sometimes do. Those local authorities are perfectly free to allocate their housing, which would be an ordinary council house or flat, to an asylum seeker on a temporary tenancy. So there is no question of an authority which has a surplus in its own stock having to send asylum seeker applicants to bed-and-breakfast accommodation; it will of course use the stock that is available to it.
That is a misconception that we heard in the Standing Committee and have heard again this evening, and I am glad to have an opportunity to make it clear that a local authority will fulfil its duty by providing accommodation which could be a short-term tenancy in its permanent stock. The local authority could also arrange a tenancy in the private sector. It could be in a hostel, or, in those areas where no alternative could be found, it could be in bed and breakfast. But it does not have to be if there are alternatives, and I believe that all hon. Members will agree that it is preferable to avoid bed-and-breakfast accommodation if possible.
If asylum seekers are subsequently recognised as refugees or otherwise granted leave to remain in the country, they will have the same rights under the homelessness legislation as anyone else. If they are refused leave to remain in the country, they will not have rights under that legislation.
Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek to deny the housing authority the opportunity to inquire of an applicant under the homelessness legislation whether he is an asylum seeker and say that instead it should rely on the asylum seeker to volunteer the information.
Given that under the proposals in this legislation the local authority will have a different duty under the homelessness legislation to an applicant who is an asylum seeker as compared with any other applicant, it is imperative that a housing authority, in order to carry out its duty, be able to establish whether an applicant is an asylum seeker. It would be unreasonable not to allow an authority to ask an applicant whether he was an asylum seeker. The lack of this ability might result in an asylum


seeker who had not revealed his status to the local authority being provided with permanent accommodation to which he was not entitled. The hon. Member for Norwood expressed great concern about the fact that these decisions would be made on the merits of housing issues. Let me say again that one of the factors which determine the merits of a housing application will be whether the applicant is an asylum seeker.
The Bill will make it simple for the authority to establish whether an applicant is an asylum seeker by applying to the Home Office for information, which the Home Office will have a duty to supply. This will assist authorities in establishing the facts. Perhaps I had better deal with the confidentiality point when we discuss how the information will be obtained and whether it is in writing or otherwise. But we have already touched in Committee on the safeguards which we intend to put in place to ensure confidentiality of information.
Amendment No. 24 illustrates the absurdity of the proposals on identifying asylum seekers. Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 provides that anyone who gives false information, or withholds information about whether a homelessness applicant is an asylum seeker, with the intention of misleading the authority is committing an offence. The amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which an offence is created to a case where the applicant, or indeed any other person, tells the authority that the applicant is an asylum seeker when he or she is not.
It would no longer be an offence for the homeless applicant to deny that he or she was an asylum seeker when that was the case. That is clearly absurd. It is hard to think of any circumstances in which an applicant for help under the homelessness legislation would say that he was an asylum seeker when he was not. It is equally absurd that an asylum seeker should be able to lie about his status with no fear of prosecution.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to make ineffective our proposal that the local authority should have the opportunity to reconsider a homelessness application when the asylum seeker is granted leave to remain in this country.
The principle behind clause 3 is that it is reasonable to distinguish under the homelessness legislation between an asylum seeker who has only a temporary right to remain in the country and someone who has a right to live here permanently. Under our proposals an asylum seeker who is homeless and in priority need will have a right only to temporary accommodation until the asylum application is determined. Subsection (4) provides that in the case of a successful asylum seeker a new application under the homelessness legislation is deemed to have been made immediately before the asylum case was determined. That gives the local authority the opportunity to consider whether the former asylum seeker is still in priority need and thereby qualifies for help under the homelessness legislation.

Mr. Boateng: What would happen in a case in which, in the interim between making the application and its successful adjudication, a woman who had had a child and therefore qualified for housing lost that child and became a single person? On the deemed reapplication, would that

woman therefore lose her priority and, in addition to losing her child, lose her home? If not, why not, given the wording of the legislation?

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that the circumstances in which the applicant was at the time of the deemed reapplication would be those which determined whether he or she still qualified as being in priority need, not the circumstances which obtained at the time of the application for asylum. If circumstances had changed, it is possible that someone who was in priority need at the time of making the application for asylum might no longer be in priority need by the time the application had been granted or the person had obtained exceptional leave to remain. It is for exactly that reason that the provision is included.
It is because we are concerned, as the hon. Member for Norwood said he was, with the merits of the housing case that we want to make sure that when someone's asylum application has been determined and has been successful we have another look at the circumstances. That seems only sensible and proper. I think that the majority of local authorities would like to have an opportunity to look at the up-to-date position.

Mr. Boateng: Does not the case which I have outlined give the Minister some concern? It is by no means hypothetical; I have constituency cases of women who have come to this country as refugees from Somalia and who have subsequently lost children. Such women suffer the trauma of being a refugee, followed by the trauma of loss of child, followed by the trauma of enforced loss of accommodation. In those circumstances, it is not as if the local authority would have discretion. The duty to house would have ended. In those circumstances, the woman would be dispossessed. Does not that give the Minister cause for concern?

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on two counts. The authority would still have discretion. An authority is at liberty to house people whether they are in priority need or not. It is merely that the duty of the authority to do so would have ended, but the authority would retain the discretion to continue to provide housing. Nothing in the Bill affects that discretion. The Bill merely removes any duty to house an asylum seeker who is not in priority need, and it removes the duty to provide permanent accommodation for someone while that person is an asylum seeker. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong because it is possible for someone still to be in priority need even if there are no dependent children, depending on the position of stress in which the individual finds himself. That is already part of the homelessness legislation.
On both grounds there could be circumstances in which a woman who had lost a child—depending on the precise facts—could still be classified as being in priority need. Even if that were not so, the local authority would still retain discretion, if it chose to use it, to provide housing. The logic of the deemed reapplication is overwhelming.
The fact remains also that a successful asylum seeker who remains in priority need has nothing to fear from the process of a deemed reapplication being made at the time when the status of the asylum seeker in this country has been determined.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 raise two distinct issues that we spent some time debating in Committee. The first issue is whether the House considers it reasonable that a


local authority should be able to take into account, in deciding whether an asylum seeker is homeless, not only whether he or she is currently occupying reasonable accommodation but whether there is some alternative accommodation—perhaps with family or friends—to which he or she might reasonably go before turning to the local authority.
I believe that the majority of hon. Members agree with that entirely reasonable proposition. The majority of asylum seekers—three out of four—are already in this country at the time of making their application. In all probability, therefore, they will have established local contacts that are sufficient to help them find alternative accommodation. We are not saying that an asylum seeker who arrives at Heathrow will be required by the local authority to seek alternative accommodation, regardless of expense or practicality. He or she will not have to search for accommodation across the country. The test is governed by what is reasonable. Local authorities will have discretion, which they are already used to applying in relation to the homelessness legislation. Ultimately it would be a matter for the courts to decide.
The second issue that is raised by amendments Nos. 14 and 15 is when an asylum seeker might be regarded as threatened with homelessness. As the hon. Member for Norwood said, this is an issue about which various outside bodies have expressed concern.
I shall outline how the threatened-with-homelessness provisions currently apply in the homelessness legislation and how they will apply to asylum seekers under the proposals in the Bill. Under the 1985 legislation, a person is threatened with homelessness if he or she is likely to become homeless within 28 days. In that event, the local authority is obliged to consider the homelessness application in the usual way. If it is satisfied that the applicant is likely to become homeless unintentionally and is in a priority need group, it must take reasonable steps to ensure that that accommodation does not cease to be available for his or her occupation. That could mean assisting the applicant in such a way that he can stay on where he is, or it could mean that once the person has become homeless at the end of the period, there is alternative accommodation available for his occupation.
The hon. Member for Brent, South raised the case of the Kurdish refugees who were housed by the Harlesden Methodists. The position is clear. If the period available to the refugees were less than 28 days, they could establish that they were in priority need. Existing legislation does not mean—this is what Opposition Members are seeking to achieve for asylum seekers by means of the amendments—that the housing authority has a duty to secure alternative accommodation the moment that the threat of homelessness within 28 days has been identified. It would be a waste of resources to adopt that approach if accommodation were still available for another four weeks. It is more sensible for a local authority to take on the responsibility at the end of the period that is currently available.
In Committee, I undertook to check that the provisions of the 1985 Act applying to people threatened with homelessness apply equally to asylum seekers under the Bill's proposals. They do nothing to affect the continuing application of the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act that are not explicitly modified by our new proposals.
Hon. Members expressed concern on behalf of voluntary bodies about our proposals, but the Bill does not present any disincentive to voluntary organisations to continue making provisions.
9.30 pm
Amendment No. 17 seeks to alter the provisions in the Bill relating to security of tenure. The Bill provides that, in the case of an asylum seeker, the right to a secure local authority tenancy or a housing authority or private assured tenancy does not arise until 12 months after notification to the landlord by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the applicant has ceased to be an asylum seeker—though the landlord's discretion remains. As I said before, it is illogical that someone should be able to obtain a secure or assured tenancy until their right to remain in this country has been permanently established.
Amendments Nos. 18, 19, and 20 deal with safeguards against unauthorised disclosure of information about an asylum seeker, which was debated in Committee at some length. We are of course anxious to preserve the confidentiality of information obtained from the Home Office, and I have made arrangements with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that the normal mode of communicating between the housing authority will be in writing. I am satisfied that there is no need to include that provision in the Bill. We will make administrative arrangements, but as I gain the impression from Opposition Members that they want to conclude the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I will be happy to explain them in writing.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to clarify that the Secretary of State may pass on information about an asylum seeker only to a housing authority. I am happy to accept that amendment to ensure that the position is made clear in the Bill.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State notifies both the housing authority and the applicant in writing of the outcome of the application for asylum. We believe that that is unnecessary, because paragraph 6(3) of schedule 1 already makes that clear. I therefore urge the House to accept amendment No. 19 but to reject the others.

Mr. Fraser: As we want to make progress, I will comment only briefly on the Minister's remarks. He reads well, but the people who write for him do not write very well. When the hon. Gentleman expresses compassion about people on the housing waiting list, he should remember some of his Department's other records. The Minister represents a Department which has the worst local authority housing construction record in peacetime this century. We do not hear much from the Government about people on the waiting list except in debates such as this. The Minister represents a Department which has also increased the number of homeless by 300 per cent. since his party took office. Although the hon. Gentleman reads well, he does not learn very well.
When the Minister says that the status of asylum seekers should be relevant to local authority consideration, he repeats the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The moment that status


becomes a prime consideration, discriminatory factors become relevant. An asylum seeker's housing application should be considered on its own merits.
The best construction that can be put on clause 3 is that it represents a disincentive to those who seek political asylum, and the worst—judging from some of the Minister's remarks—is that it is intended to serve as a scapegoat for the Government's appalling housing record.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—
'(5A) For the purposes of this section and that Schedule a person who makes a claim for asylum—

(a) becomes an asylum-seeker when his claim is at any time (whether before or after the coming into force of this section) recorded by the Secretary of State as having been made, and
(b)
ceases to be an asylum-seeker when his claim is recorded by the Secretary of State as having been finally determined or abandoned.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]

Clause 4

CURTAILMENT OF LEAVE TO ENTER OR REMAIN

Sir Timothy Raison: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 4, line 25, after 'person', insert
', other than a student on a recognised course,'.
Clause 4 provides that when a person who already has limited leave to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom has his or her claim for asylum refused, the Secretary of State for the Home Department may curtail that limited leave for him or her to remain. Amendment No. 31 is designed to exempt students on recognised courses from the risk of removal until they complete their courses. Whatever may be the arguments in respect of clause 4 as a whole, there is a strong case for exempting students. My hon. Friend the Minister seemed to concede that pretty fully in Committee, when he said:
Of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not obliged to curtail leave and there will be various cases in which he will not wish to do so, such as that of a bona fide student who has made an unsuccessful application before the end of his course because of events at home."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 December 1991; c. 156.]
What could be clearer than that? Why should we not exempt the bona fide student?
I have been trying to imagine a case in which a student might be able to abuse the system if my amendment were accepted. He might try to use asylum to prolong his stay, but, if his case for asylum were not accepted, he would have to leave at the end of his course, just as he would if he had not made a bid. If it were accepted, he would not have to go anyway.
It could, I suppose, be argued that the student could delay his asylum application until nearer the end of the course, so in a sense the problem does not arise. As I understand it, however, the draft immigration rules require prompt and full disclosure of material factors. The Government seem to be saying that if someone is going to apply for asylum, he should do so sooner rather than later. In the light of that, it would surely be most unjust for a student to have to give up his studies as a result of an unsuccessful asylum application.
No doubt my hon. Friend will point out that this is no more than a discretionary power; he will say that the key

word is "may", and that the provision will not be applied unjustly. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would apply it unjustly, as I have great respect for him and for the fairness that he exercises; the applicant, however, may not be aware of his sterling qualities. He may simply recoil at the possibility of losing his education, and feel that he cannot take the risk entailed in that. In such circumstances, a student might withhold a perfectly reasonable application for asylum—an application that would succeed. Surely it cannot be right to use the possibility of the termination of his course to deter the exercise of what is accepted as a legitimate right.
It is, of course, possible that my amendment is not valid technically. I feel, however, that the case for my argument is overwhelming; indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that in Committee. My amendment neither should nor would help a bogus student to prolong his stay; there are other ways of dealing with that. I hope that my hon. Friend—who has handled the whole issue so sensitively—will feel able to accept the amendment.

Mr. Jim Lester: I support the amendment. Those of us whose constituencies contain universities know that such circumstances arise. A young person may arrive at university, intending to stay for two or three years, with no knowledge of what may happen in his country of origin. He cannot plan when to apply for asylum; that will be dictated by the situation in his country.
Those who remember the Iran-Iraq war will recall that students from both countries found themselves in very difficult personal circumstances. I cannot imagine a case in which someone could use an application to act other than reasonably. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) pointed out, those who apply for asylum and are unsuccessful will stay only for as long as their education visas last; there is no way in which they will abuse the system.
I hope that the amendment will be accepted—or, at least, that its spirit will be accepted, and it can be altered in another place.

Mr. Darling: We support the amendment. Both the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), being former Ministers, speak with some authority, and I hope that they have persuaded the Minister to accept the amendment.
We should remember that the whole point of clause 4 is to provide a disincentive: the applicant must be aware that, once asylum has been applied for, he runs the risk of having his existing leave curtailed. The intention is to discourage someone from applying for asylum. It is not just
students who are in this difficult position. Visitors sometimes find that they are in the same position. A couple of my constituents have visitors from Croatia where the situation will change between the time that they entered the United Kingdom and the time that they are due to leave this country. The point made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury about students has even more force. Events may have dramatically changed in the home country after the lapse of three or four years.
If the Minister intends to say that we should not worry because of the Secretary of State's discretion, I ought to mention to him that if the point of clause 4 is to discourage such applications and it then becomes known that the discretion is to be used generally, it will undermine the


Government's reason for including clause 4. If there is general agreement that if a student applies for asylum he or she should be allowed to continue the course, even if the application is unsuccessful, I cannot see what harm will be done. The right hon. Gentleman dealt very well with the possible abuses that the Minister might conjure up. I look forward with interest to the ingenuity that the Minister will use to reject the amendment. What would be even better, however, would be for the Minister to tell us that if additional amendments are to be tabled in another place, this one will join them.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) made a sympathetic and persuasive case, though the different categories are dealt with in the rules rather than in the primary legislation. We do not intend routinely to use curtailment in all cases where there is extant limited leave. Discretion will be exercised, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The bona fide student who continues to meet the requirements of the rules is a good example of someone whose leave will not be curtailed. That is not the only example. The same will apply to business men, work permit holders and others.
However, we cannot assume that all those who gained entry as students should not have their leave curtailed. Some of them may have no real intention to pursue a serious course of study and to leave this country when it is completed. A specific exemption would only encourage more dubious attempts to get into that category.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said that he could not imagine that there would be no merit in any student's claim to be a student. If he had seen as many cases as I have of people who gained entry as students, but who have not attended college for many months, sometimes even years. I believe that he would modify his opinion. There are people who gained leave as a student but who are not students at present, and they have not been pursuing a course of study for a considerable period of time.

Mr. Lester: The amendment refers to students being granted leave until they have completed their course. Therefore, one assumes that the students about whom we are talking are pursuing a course of study at a university or college.

Mr. Lloyd: The trouble is that they do not complete the course and that they have no real intention of doing so. As soon as the authorities contact them, many of these people embark on yet another course.
The new power is aimed primarily at those who enter as visitors and seek asylum shortly afterwards. It is right, however, to be able to consider other categories. Even though I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, I can assure him that the Secretary of State will not automatically curtail the leave of a student simply because his asylum claim has failed. If a student appeals, due to the refusal of his asylum claim, he can at the same time appeal against the curtailment of his leave as a student. His case would, however, already have been very sympathetically considered if he was in good standing with his college and if his desire to complete his studies was convincing.
I am sorry that I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, but I hope that he has been somewhat encouraged by what I have said.

Mr. Maclennan: I listened with care to what the Under-Secretary said, but he has not answered the case put by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison); nor has he said what mischief would arise from accepting the amendment. If his concern is with those who are claiming to be students but are not pursuing a course of study, that would negate the effect of the exclusion. They would be subject to the law if they were not students.
The other place would be wise to return to this matter, as there is strong support for it in this House.

Mr. Lloyd: I understand what the hon. Gentleman said. However, that would mean that it would be open to the so-called student to appeal in the ordinary appellate system and there would be an opportunity for that person to remain in this country for a considerable time in the queue for the hearing of the appeal.

Sir Timothy Raison: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I am not persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that this would be a way of policing students who are trying to abuse the system by not pursuing their studies or are trying to stay indefinitely. I remember from my Home Office days that that problem exists and it was one with which I had to grapple. However, I do not think that this is the mechanism for dealing with it.
I know that the House wants to get on to Third Reading and I do not want to prolong matters, but, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, this has not been fully answered. It would be desirable if the matter were pursued in the other place and I hope that it will be. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

CARRIERS' LIABILITY FOR TRANSIT PASSENGERS

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 6, line 30, leave out 'or any similar characteristic' and insert
', origin or other connection with any particular country or territory'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 9

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 7, line 21, leave out 'or any similar characteristic' and insert
', origin or other connection with any particular country or territory'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 1

HOUSING OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 9, line 36, leave out first 'an' and insert 'a housing'.—[Mr. Fraser.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Dave Nellist: I am glad to have an opportunity of making a few remarks at the end of the consideration of the Bill. Other business has


prevented me from playing a bigger role in the earlier proceedings. I want to place on record on behalf of my constituents my opposition to the Bill.
I remember the first debate on the Bill, just a couple of months ago. In almost his opening sentence, the Home Secretary assured the House that there was no question of the Bill playing the numbers game. The preparation for the Bill began in the summer, when the tabloid Tory newspapers made it clear that part of their pre-electioneering was to play a racist card by supporting the introduction of this Bill. There was a spate of stories about the country being "swamped" or of there being "too many asylum seekers" and of the "scandal" of thousands of "bogus" applicants.
On 3 November, The Sunday Times managed to combine nearly all those elements in one sentence when it said:
Tory MPs, particularly those with seats in the Midlands, plan to fight Labour hard on its pledge to oppose the government's legislation cracking down on immigrants seeking bogus political asylum.
Virtually all those elements were contained in a single sentence in one article. Of course, that is not an objective appraisal.
As anyone who has read the Committee proceedings or heard the debates in the Chamber will know, the word "bogus" is not an objective term but a purely subjective analysis which changes as do the rules and regulations, which the Government regularly tighten. People who do not come under the ambit of these rules and regulations are described as bogus.
What have we been talking about in terms of numbers, an issue with which the Home Secretary began his contribution—45,000 or 50,000 asylum seekers last year? What is that? It is perhaps the gate at a Manchester City/Manchester United local derby football match. The reality is that only about 5 per cent. of the estimated 17.5 million refugees in the world get as far as or seek to come to Europe, and only a small fraction of those ever apply to come to the United Kingdom. Those statistics are a matter of public record, but it is hard to find them reflected in many of the newspaper articles that I mentioned, especially those in the tabloids in recent months.
It is also a matter of public record, because the Home Office admitted it to me in a parliamentary answer some months ago, that in 20 of the past 27 years—from 1964 to 1990—there was a net outflow of people emigrating from this country. For those who wish to know, during those 27 years there was a net outflow of 786,000 people. That is a matter of public record, so there is no question of this country, in the immortal words of the former Prime Minister, being
swamped by people of an alien culture".
The Bill has been designed to make asylum not easier but harder. It will be made harder because of carrier fines and the associated regulations. The speeding up of the process which is part of the Bill does not bode well for a fair hearing. The Minister will know of a case that I raised, which has occupied staff in his office in recent weeks. It involved a Sikh constituent who, if I had not intervened, would have been sent initially to Germany and possibly back to the Punjab, where his brother was killed some months ago.
I was able to raise the case because of the powers of intervention that hon. Members still have, but those powers will be side-stepped by the tightening of the procedures and by the denial of an oral hearing which the Bill will make law. If, in that case or in future cases, the so-called removal to the port of first entry is to be the norm, and if no assurances are received from the country to which the person is sent, I predict that the Bill will result in people being sent to their death.
As Nye Bevan used to say, one does not need to look into a crystal ball if one can read the book. We know about the famous case of the Tamil seekers after refugee status—five were sent back to Sri Lanka and four were tortured. That is a matter of record. I could mention other cases, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak. Any hon. Member who has a substantial proportion of constituents with families residing in other countries could provide case after case to show that the Bill will put at risk the lives and safety of constituents' families.
As I said, the Bill was politically aimed at the pre-election period. The newspapers that give support and succour to the Tory party played their role well, not only by softening public opinion in advance of the House's consideration of the Bill, but by poisoning workers' minds with their repeated stories of con men, of racketeering and of massive social security fraud. How those stories seemed to escalate in the weeks before the Queen's Speech when the Bill was first introduced in the House.
We are talking about people fleeing persecution by some of the world's worst dictatorships, fleeing countries racked by civil war under repressive regimes often supported and funded by countries in the west in general, and even by this country in particular.
I have been politically active for 20 years. The first case with which I dealt as an individual was that of refugees from Chile, who had arrived in Coventry in the early 1970s with no clothes and no furniture. My grandfather's radio, which is still playing, was given to the children of the first Chilean refugee family to get as far as Coventry in the early 1970s. Throughout that period and until today, we have received families from Africa, Asia, the Punjab, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and other countries. The Bill would make the job of hon. Members that much harder—it is designed to do so. Many Tory Members have written—not least my neighbour the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who wrote an article a few days ago in a Coventry magazine stating that it was because hon. Members were clogging up Home Office procedure with their interventions that the Bill had to be introduced.
We know why the Bill has been introduced. It seeks to criminalise those who come to this country seeking political asylum. As "Newsnight" showed last night, several hundred of the people who get as far as these shores find that Britain's hospitality leads them to the detention centre at Harmsworth or to prison, where they languish for weeks or months.
I make no apology for saying that the Bill legitimises and underpins the arguments of racists in this country, which, if unchecked, could lead to the horrors that have occurred in France and Germany in recent months, where people have been burnt out of hostels and there have been several attacks. Just before Christmas, a black woman in my constituency—Mrs. Morrison, who is not a refugee—was threatened with a baseball bat, her phone and television cables were cut four times and she had beans and grease thrown at her windows and dog excreta smeared on


her doormat. She fears for her own life and that of her 12-year-old son. If the Bill is enacted, the proposals that it contains will legitimise, underpin and give support to racist organisations such as the National Front and the British National party, which seek to take on to the streets the racist and neo-Nazi ideas that unfortunately gain succor from those who play the numbers game in the House or elsewhere.
As a socialist, I believe that people who are fleeing war and persecution should be welcomed into this country as they have been so many times by past generations. Our parents and grandparents welcomed the people from Europe, eastern Europe, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa who were seeking to flee persecution. It should not only be Russian composers and South African athletes with friends in the Tory Cabinet who are allowed here in a matter of days: all those who flee persecution should have a right to seek and find asylum and refuge in this country.
I hope that, when Opposition spokesmen make their wind-up speeches later, and when, as I hope, Labour form a Government in the weeks and months ahead, they will make it clear that they will not only make it easier and quicker for refugees to be granted the right to stay in this country, but withdraw support from those regimes from whom people are fleeing—such administrations should include the Governments of Sri Lanka and India as long as oppression continues in the Kashmir and Punjab—and embark on a sufficiently large programme of public works to build homes, hospitals and schools so that unemployment and other social conditions do not allow racism to breed in the cities and towns of Britain.
There is no justification for the Bill. The Home Secretary seems to take it as conclusive proof that anyone who arrives with bogus documents is, by definition, a bogus refugee or asylum seeker. Most people fleeing a country in which there is oppression do not have time to queue up at a British embassy or high commission for the necessary paperwork. The very nature of their departure means that they often seek refuge here via a third country. The fast track proposed in the Bill will weaken or even fatally flaw the ability of such people to seek refuge in this country.
It is a nasty little Bill, and the House should drop it into the dustbin tonight. If it is enacted, I hope that a future Labour Government will give a categorical pledge to repeal it and the earlier racist legislation on which it is built. I wish to ensure that families in my constituency and others up and down the country are united instead of divided, as they are at present. I want to ensure that those who come here to save their lives, those who have been restricted and suppressed in their own countries, are not further restricted and suppressed when they seek refuge in this country, which has traditionally been a haven for refugees and, in my opinion, should continue to be such a haven.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Asylum Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10 pm

Mr. Maclennan: The House wishes to come to a conclusion on this Bill tonight.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has just spoken with very great passion and feeling. I do not believe that what we have heard from him was the least bit simulated. He spoke with conviction, and he spoke for many people—people outside this House as well as in it—who share his abhorrence of the measure that Parliament is passing with so little scrutiny.
Today the House is being asked to conclude its deliberations against a background of Government uncertainty about the administration of the provisions of this legislation, which is almost unparalleled and unbelievable. When the Bill was being introduced the House was advised that the prime responsibility for representing and giving advice to people seeking asylum would rest with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Today we have been told that this is not so. The whole foundation of the argument put forward by the Minister was shot from under his feet by himself. At lunch time today the Minister published amendments to the immigration rules. In doing so at such a late hour he made it impossible for the House properly to consider the amendments and to decide whether, in the whole new framework of rules, the Bill is appropriate. That is not the way in which the House should deliberate in respect of such a sensitive matter.
We have not received from the Minister, either today or on an earlier occasion, a direct answer to the accusation of the Commission for Racial Equality that at least some of the Bill's provisions are racially discriminatory and are counter to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is a very serious matter that the chairman of this Government-appointed body, Mr. Michael Day, should make such a charge. I refer in particular to clause 4, which relates to the duties of local authorities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has not been so closely involved at all stages of the debate on this Bill as to know what Mr. Michael Day and the Commission for Racial Equality have said about it. That body, which is charged by statute and was appointed by the present Government to protect our society from racial discriminatory measures, has made the charge to which I have just referred. It is a very serious charge, and the Government have not answered it. No doubt, however, it will come up again in another place.
Upon that House falls a heavy responsibility to ameliorate this rotten little measure, which does nothing to enhance the reputation of the Ministers who brought it forward. I should say in passing that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office has undertaken his role with honour and distinction. He has attempted the impossible by at least seeking to explain, if not to justify, what is in the Government's mind. Justification would be impossible. The Home Secretary, of course, has nothing to say. The Home Secretary is the Home Secretary. [Laughter.] I use a rhetorical device that Mr. Edward Pearce is accused of having used too frequently.
I hope that this Bill will come to grief in another place and that it will come back to this House much improved. Those in the other place who have experience of the law—and there are a number of former Home Secretaries


there who have direct experience of handling these matters—would do well to justify their revising role by making hefty revisions to the Bill before it returns to this House.

Mr. Madden: As I have been in the Chamber throughout today's proceedings and attended every sitting of the Standing Committee, I should like to take this opportunity again to place on record my opposition to the Bill.
Every time we consider the Bill, it becomes clearer that the provisions are wholly unnecessary and unjustified. It has become clear today that it may well be impossible to administer the provisions and, clearly, the Bill may have the most dangerous consequences for the men, women and even children who seek political asylum in the United Kingdom.
Last year, we were told by the so-called popular press, and by many right-wing Conservative Members, that hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of people were queuing up to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom. That propaganda campaign caused widespread alarm among many sections of the community at the prospect of all those people flooding into the country seeking political asylum.
We were told that many of the applicants—indeed, the majority of them—were bogus, and we have heard that again today. How can that be squared with the Government's information that nine of every 10 people seeking political asylum are genuine—indeed, must be genuine because they are granted exceptional need to remain or full political asylum? We know from the Government's information that the bulk of applicants are genuine and we have no reason to believe that, in future, the majority will be bogus.
The Government have tried to persuade us that the Bill is necessary to allow applications for political asylum to be considered more quickly. None of us supports the system which has meant that many seeking political asylum have had to wait up to a year—in some cases, for several years—to have their applications considered. None of us can justify arrangements whereby appeals can take months and months to be held. But if the Government want to expedite political asylum applications, they can do so very easily. They could have done it years ago by devoting more resources to enabling applications to be considered quickly and efficiently and by appointing more officials.
It is clear that the real purpose of the Bill has nothing to do with the creation of a fair and efficient system for considering political asylum cases, and everything to do with political opportunism and the Government's desire to pander to right-wing sections of the Conservative party—which have been in evidence again today.
The Bill is without friends. Opposition to it is considerable. Its opponents range from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality which, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, has warned that the Bill may well breach the Race Relations Act 1976.
The Bill may also breach our obligations under international conventions. It will certainly intimidate men, women and even children and deter them from applying

for political asylum in Britain. The message that the Bill sends out clearly and loudly is "You are unwelcome here, go away." The Bill is part of a process that is now under way to create a Fortress Europe, so that the European Community can turn its back on those who are seeking refuge from violence, from persecution, from war, and from torture.
The Bill is unnecessary, dangerous and offensive. How, in 1992, can the House agree to a system whereby we routinely photograph and fingerprint even children? Those provisions are obscene. As we have heard today, the housing provisions will create enormous distress and difficulty for many families waiting for decisions on their political asylum applications.
This is a bad, squalid Bill. I hope very much that it never reaches the statute book but, if it does, I hope that the next Labour Government will repeal it.

Mr. Boateng: This is indeed a squalid, unworthy little Bill. It is discriminatory both in its intent and in its effect. It has been given a thorough going-over in Committee and in the House. Some concessions have been wrung out of the Government, but, nevertheless, it remains an unpleasant Bill. It remains a piece of legislation, the effect of which is to put this country in breach of its international obligations.
Earlier, reference was made to the specificity of the provisions. The international provisions which the Bill causes us to breach are article 19(4)(C) of the Council of Europe's social charter and the International Labour Organisation's convention No. 97, two articles of international law on which this country has been obliged to renege in pursuit of the Government's purpose—a purpose which does the House no credit.
At this time of the year, we in the Christian calendar celebrate the flight of Our Lord and his parents, delivered from Herod, into Egypt. At this time of the year, we might reflect on the Bill, because one can be in no doubt that if Our Lord and his parents were to seek to gain entry into the United Kingdom, they would have great difficulty. They would be turned away at the gates. If they were admitted, they would not only find themselves in danger of being fingerprinted—Mary, Joseph and child; such are the provisions of the Bill—but, were they to obtain temporary accommodation in a church or synagogue in excess of 28 days, they would be denied local authority housing.
This is a strange measure—strange because we have not had established in the House a sufficient reason for introducing a measure of this nature, the extent of which is so thoroughly discreditable. There is still time for the Government to make a better Bill in another place. They can begin by getting rid of clause 3 and its impact on existing housing legislation. Housing and immigration do not mix in terms of the functions of the House in creating new law. They should never have been intermingled in such a way, and they make the Bill even more unworthy than it would otherwise be.
There have been attempts to make the presentation of the Bill more palatable by stating that bona fide refugees need have nothing to fear and that our traditions of hospitality to bona fide refugees remain as they have always been. An attempt has been made to gloss over the more objectionable characteristics of the Bill by saying


that they are necessary to preserve the general public good of those settled and permanently resident in the United Kingdom.
If that is true, the Government can give credence to their own case by recognising the very real needs that local authority associations of all political hues have made known to the Home Office and to the Department of the Environment. They can recognise the representations of the Churches, the voluntary organisations, the housing associations and the Housing Corporation, which seek to deal with refugees who are legally in this country. They can heed the representations made to the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about the impact in and on our constituencies of the presence of bona fide refugees.
What happens in schools in my constituency when young Somali boys and girls, many of them unaccompanied, find themselves there? What happens at Copland school in my constituency where they have had to deal with several score of Somali refugees without a penny more of resources from the Government? When the headmaster, the governing body and the local education authority, under both Conservative and Labour, have written to the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office about this gap in the funding of local authority provision for refugees, answer comes there none. Not a penny more comes from the Department of the Environment, the Home Office or the Department of Education and Science to deal with the resettlement of genuine refugees and to deal with the impact on local communities of refugees with special needs and problems—refugees already traumatised when they enter this country.
If the Government are genuine in their concern for bona fide refugees, they will put their money—our money—where their mouth is and do something to help local authorities tackle the problem. Until they show that they genuinely care about refugees and about the reputation of this country, we will be entitled to treat the Bill, as we do, with contempt.

Mr. Corbyn: As one who spoke against the Bill on Second Reading, right through Committee and in today's proceedings, I want to put on record my continuing opposition to the Bill and my contempt for the purpose of it and the way in which the whole thing has been presented.
It has been accompanied, as other hon. Members have said, by a particularly nasty campaign in the popular press, with day-to-day stories of alleged social security fraud, including telephone fraud, with a story one day of excessive numbers of people seeking asylum and, on the next day, a story of multiple asylum applications. Yet at no stage are these stories properly collated or the issues surrounding asylum properly set out. It is part of an attempt to create a fear, a xenophobic attitude in the country, and it has been promoted by the Home Office and, in particular, by the Home Secretary with his disgusting and disgraceful speech to the Tory party conference some months ago.
It is against that background that there is a refusal by the Home Secretary and the media to recognise the real reasons why people seek asylum or the fact that the vast majority of people who have sought and obtained some form of safe haven have not come to western Europe or north America but have been cared for by the poor in the

poor countries of the world. It is in Mexico, India, Iran and the Sudan that one finds very large numbers of people who have sought asylum, living in awful conditions and with very little help given by the wealthy west.
Yet all these things—the use of the words "flood" and "waves", the supposedly large numbers of asylum seekers trying to get into western Europe—are used to stoke up fears. On the back of this xenophobia, the racists are at work in Europe: there have been 800 attacks on the homes of people in western and eastern Germany who have sought to work there for economic reasons. Racist violence is going on there. There have been attacks on the streets of France. Racist attacks happen once very 30 minutes in this country. That is the agenda of the new Europe. I am not saying that the Bill is entirely related to all that, but the atmosphere surrounding it and the purpose behind its introduction lie in the direction of stoking up racist feelings in this country when we should be heading in the opposite direction.
The Bill makes it more difficult for those fleeing from persecution to gain entry into this country. As a result of the Trevi group and the Schengen and Dublin agreements, it is now more difficult to gain entry into western Europe as a whole. Those who readily condemn people who seek political asylum should spare a thought for what those who have suffered from political and social persecution have gone through. They should talk to those who have been tortured in Somalia or Zaire. They should talk to those who fled from the regime of Saddam Hussein—not last year when that was a popular cause because of the Gulf war, but five or 10 years ago when the British Government were happily trading with Saddam Hussein. They should talk to those who have fled from Iran and to those who managed to get out of the national stadium in Chile in 1973 when 20,000 people were killed by that fascist dictatorship—another one that was armed by the British Government.
We need some understanding of what it is like to have to leave one's country, possibly never to return—because that is what seeking political asylum is all about. Our attitude should recognise what we would want for ourselves if we were in the same situation—a place of safety, welcome and understanding. Instead, we offer a limited right of appeal with limited access to social security. We positively refuse to grant such asylum seekers permanent housing.
The Bill will go down in history as one of those nasty reactionary measures introduced by a particularly nasty and reactionary Government who are seeking to run with a nasty tide. We should recognise the victims of persecution not as the cause of a problem, but as the victims of a much wider problem. We should adopt a more welcoming and supportive attitude towards them. The Bill is wholly wrong and inappropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) rightly said, the Bill is wholly friendless and should be opposed by the House.

Mr. Darling: Although we have had long discussions on the Bill both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, it would be wrong to let the Bill pass its Third Reading without comment. There is no doubt that the problems of asylum seekers and of the movement of people in Europe


and elsewhere are real problems, but they need to be tackled rationally instead of being seen as an opportunity to score political advantage.
Hon. Members will remember that the Bill was yet another Tory flagship. The Home Secretary promoted its cause throughout last year—in the House, at the Tory party conference and wherever he could—but he has not even spoken today. It is no coincidence that the same Secretary of State who introduced the poll tax, which is now floundering, has abandoned the central plank of the Bill—the attempt to remove legal aid from those who seek asylum. It is clear from today's debate that legal advice and assistance is here to stay—at least for the time being. The Government's chosen replacement is now to be broken up because it cannot discharge the task that the Home Secretary was so confident only 11 months ago that it could. The rules that were published at lunch time today have made substantial concessions. I am glad of that and pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who has attempted to fashion a workable Bill out of what started originally as a piece of political rhetoric.
However, the Bill remains ill thought out. It was rushed out in an attempt to gain party advantage, which has failed, rather than being an attempt to tackle the real problem. The Committee and Report stages have effected substantial changes and we understand that more changes are to be proposed in another place. However, the Bill remains fundamentally flawed. I refer especially to the lack of a right of appeal. The clauses that are designed to discourage people from seeking asylum serve no other purpose.
Nothing in the Bill will stop asylum applications. As long as there is conflict and famine throughout the world, people will apply for asylum. The challenge for us is to deal with those applications fairly and thoroughly so that we do not run the risk of sending people back to countries where they may be tortured or face death. The Bill has failed to rise to that challenge. It was designed for entirely the wrong reasons. It has failed to meet the many challenges that it needs to meet. For those reasons, we shall oppose its Third Reading.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: This is a good and necessary Bill and I reject utterly the inflammatory, indeed palpably ignorant, charge by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and other hon. Gentlemen who, like him, have suggested that it is racist. It is designed to give effect to the 1951 United Nations convention in a way that ensures that all those who arrive in the United Kingdom with a well-founded fear of persecution, wherever they come from, will find a safe haven here; and that those who have no such fear and no other humanitarian or appropriate reason for remaining, wherever they come from, will be obliged to leave.
I urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading and speed it to the other place.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Division No. 47]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Favell, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amos, Alan
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Atkins, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Fry, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Benyon, W.
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ground, Patrick


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butler, Chris
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Gran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, James


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dykes, Hugh
Knowles, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)






Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, Sir John


Miller, Sir Hal
Sumberg, David


Mills, lain
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder 


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Valley)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trippier, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Ward, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Warren, Kenneth


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Sir John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Price, Sir David
Wilshire, David


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Redwood, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Wood, Timothy 


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Sackville, Hon Tom



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Anderson, Donald


Allen, Graham
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Alton, David
Armstrong, Hilary



Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Haynes, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Barron, Kevin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Battle, John
Home Robertson, John


Beith, A. J.
Hood, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bellotti, David
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hoyle, Doug


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blair, Tony
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boateng, Paul
Illsley, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Ingram, Adam


Bradley, Keith
Janner, Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys M6n)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Callaghan, Jim
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kirkwood, Archy


Canavan, Dennis
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lambie, David


Cartwright, John
Lamond, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leighton, Ron


Clelland, David
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livsey, Richard


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Crowther, Stan
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCartney, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum A.


Darling, Alistair
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Edwards, Huw
Marek, Dr John


Enright, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meale, Alan


Faulds, Andrew
Michael, Alun


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek
Morley, Elliot


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fraser, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


Galloway, George
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Hara, Edward


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Neill, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hain, Peter
Prescott, John


Hardy, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Quin, Ms Joyce






Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Randall, Stuart
Strang, Gavin


Redmond, Martin
Straw, Jack


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, George
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Robinson, Geoffrey
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis


Rooker, Jeff
Wallace, James


Rooney, Terence
Walley, Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N.


Ruddock, Joan
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Sheerman, Barry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wray, Jimmy


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Housing (Hyndburn)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Even though it means delaying my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on what has already been for him a busy day, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again the problem of housing in Hyndburn. It has been the subject of previous debates, of many ministerial visits to Hyndburn and of delegations that I have arranged to meet Ministers at the Department.
The principal housing policy of the Conservative Government, who were elected in 1979, is simply defined: an increase in home ownership. Measured against that simple objective, the policy has exceeded beyond all expectations. Home ownership has increased from 55 per cent. in 1979 to 67 per cent. in 1990.
The people of Hyndburn did not need the encouragement offered by the new Conservative Government in 1979 to buy their own homes. They realised many years earlier that home ownership was a good thing. A high level of home ownership had already been achieved due to the self-restraint and independent nature of the people there, and the way in which, over the years, they resisted the onslaught of municipal socialism in housing.
Eighty-one per cent. of people in Hyndburn own their own homes, and therein lies its problem. The Government successfully concentrated on providing effective policies to promote new owner-occupation but, perhaps undertandably, they did not pay sufficient attention to the problems of areas such as Hyndburn, where a high level of owner-occupation had already been achieved.
Important though policies such as the sale of council houses, various low-cost ownership schemes, and the removal of constraints on private builders are in a national context, they are of only minor relevance in Hyndburn. With home ownership there at 81 per cent.—it has been approaching that figure for many years—it will be obvious that a substantial number of owner-occupiers are in the lower income groups.
Hyndburn is a low-wage area, even by comparison with other parts of Lancashire—let alone the rest of the country. Consequently, although owner-occupiers have made their mortgage payments over the years, they had nothing left to pay for major repairs or improvements. That combination of a high percentage of home ownership and low wages makes Hyndburn a special case.
In addition, a high proportion of houses in Hyndburn are far from soundly constructed. The majority were built in Victorian times to provide homes for workers in neighbouring cotton mills. Although Hyndburn's stone-built terraces were in some ways more soundly constructed than much modern, system-built housing, they were erected at such a frenetic pace—to cope with the enormous growth of industry—that many corners were cut.
In particular, insufficient care was taken to provide those properties with secure foundations, in an area notorious for its difficult ground conditions. The legacy is a private-sector housing stock that is now fast deteriorating and in need of massive investment in terms of repairs or replacement.
It is a depressing thought that, despite years of economic prosperity and high employment in the borough,


about 7,000 of its houses—approaching one quarter of the total, and nearly all of them in the private sector—are officially designated as unfit for habitation, or fit but lacking basic amenities.
My concern is that those factors—a high percentage of owner-occupation, a history of low earnings, and a poorly constructed housing stock—are not sufficiently taken into account when resources are allocated. It is clear that a high percentage of Hyndburn's housing is coming to the end of its useful life, and that major investment is needed if wholesale demolition in the not-too-distant future is to be avoided.
It is not too late. The houses in question could be saved and be improved by imaginative schemes, such as the Quadrangle—a Bradford and Northern housing association scheme in Oswaldtwistle. Alternatively, they could be left to deteriorate even further, so that, in a few years, they will be beyond repair or improvement.
It is much cheaper to improve existing housing stock than to demolish it and rebuild. Such a policy allows people to remain owner-occupiers, rather than become tenants. However, unless some way is found of providing additional resources to help Hyndburn, it will be 30 years before every owner-occupier household there can enjoy basic amenities in a property free from major defects—even on the unreasonable assumption that there will be no further deterioration meantime, and no improvements to basic standards. The average terraced property would reach its 130th year before being brought up to an adequate standard.
I do not want to give the impression that it is all doom and gloom. Far from it. In 1979, Hyndburn borough council spent only £300,000 a year on improvement grants. Under a Conservative Government, £2 million a year was spent. In addition, because Hyndburn's problems were recognised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) when he was Minister for Housing, Hyndburn was one of the first areas to benefit from the Government's estate action programme.
Generally speaking, there has been all-party support for the housing initiatives that have been undertaken; so it was particularly unfortunate that, when the Housing Minister invited the housing chairman, Councillor Mrs. Betty Court, to London to discuss Hyndburn's housing problems, the controlling Labour group—which included Labour's current parliamentary candidate—voted, to its shame, against allowing her to come.
Those who know Mrs. Court will realise that it would take more than a silly party political decision to deter her from doing all that she could to improve Hyndburn's housing; she came at her own expense. We saw the Minister together, and as a result £1 million was spent on Huncoat, one of our most rundown estates at the time. That money came from the estate action programme. Since then, we have benefited greatly from the same programme in Fern Gore, Spring Hill and Clayton le Moors.
That is good news for many council tenants, but there is still much to be done—not least on the Trinity street estate in Oswaldtwistle, and in other areas of the borough where estates are in need of urgent action if the accommodation is to be of reasonable standard. Despite the considerable capital investment of recent years, there are still many council houses with serious defects and a lack of amenities.
We benefited, too, when—after intense pressure from many of us—the Government decided to extend the neighbourhood revitalisation services scheme. I was very pleased when Hyndburn was one of the areas to benefit. The scheme's contribution to the improvement of houses in the east Accrington area has been invaluable. Housing associations have also played an increasingly important part in the provision of much-needed accommodation for our growing number of elderly people. Schemes totalling over £3.5 million are in this year's programme.
Over the past 10 years, the council has dealt with the very worst housing, but we are now left with a great mass of properties built within a couple of decades. Inroads into the problem have been made, mainly in the areas that have been targeted for housing action area activity. A series of housing action areas, and a couple of general improvement areas, have represented the main thrust of the council's improvement activities since 1980. There remains, however, an enormous and urgent problem.
The council's housing capital programme has been reduced from a peak of £6,676,000 in 1989–90 to £4,306,000 in 1991–92, with a similar figure likely this year. That reduction has unfortunately coincided with an increased demand for mandatory renovation grant expenditure—mainly owing to the introduction of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, whose provisions I welcome but which has caused further problems for the borough. For example, the original programme expenditure on renovation grants in 1990–91 was £1,420,000. To meet the demand for the new mandatory payments, that had to be increased to £2.3 million.
To accommodate the increased expenditure on renovation grants, expenditure in other areas, especially repairs and improvements to council stock, was severely curtailed. Two contracts for the completion of estate action schemes were postponed from the 1990–91 programme, and could not even be proceeded with in 1991–92. That, I feel, is particularly unfortunate.
The Department of the Environment was advised of the council's dilemma, and encouraged the council to bid for a supplementary credit approval. In the event, the application was not approved. That resulted in an overspend of £520,000 in 1990–91, which the council covered by using the provisions of section 65 of the 1989 Act.
If the council was to meet its statutory duties to approve mandatory grants within six months, it would have been impossible for it to redeem the overspend from the 1991–92 programme, and it would therefore have had to roll it forward. As a consequence, I arranged a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), which took place on 8 May.
In addition to making a request for supplementary credit approval of £520,000 to deal with the 1990–91 overspend and an SCA of £1 million in 1991–92 to handle the legal duties of the council in respect of the urban renewal legislation programme, we also requested a supplementary credit approval of £300,000 to allow a clearance-rebuild partnership with Wimpey Homes, through an imaginative scheme, to harness housing compensation for investment in new housing provision.
As the Minister will be aware, the aspiration of many owner-occupiers is to maintain their tenure. The scheme that we outlined sought to achieve just that, in an area


where there is a gap that otherwise cannot be filled between the compensation resulting from clearance and the price of a new house.
The Secretary of State visited Hyndburn on 18 June and said that he was greatly impressed by the co-operation between Hyndburn borough council and Wimpey Homes. The result of that meeting on 8 May was an SCA of £900,000—clearly short of the amount requested, but welcome nevertheless. The scheme devised by Wimpey Homes is now going ahead under the title "resale covenant scheme". That, too, is welcome news.
In this short debate, I have sought to demonstrate that we have the needs and ideas for dealing with them but that we do not have the resources to enable us to do so. I want those people who have been waiting for a considerable time for grants to improve their properties—many of whom I have visited in their homes, where I saw the conditions for myself—to be able to obtain grants quickly. If they cannot, and if there is not an even greater increase in resources than we have had in the past, we shall be struggling in Hyndhurn not to increase home ownership, which is in line with Government policy, but to maintain it at its present level.
I understand that, once again, a sum has been set aside by the Department for SCAs. I urge the Minister to ensure both that Hyndburn receives a substantial part of that sum and that our bid for estate action resources for the Trinity street estate in Oswaldtwistle leads to money being made available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on raising this extremely important issue and I pay tribute to him for his vigorous and consistent advocacy on behalf of his constituents. He has played an important part in securing for Hyndburn sympathetic treatment of its housing problems over the years. He referred to his meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on this issue.
It is gratifying to hear that Hyndburn has made good use of its past allocations of housing investment programme resources and that particular benefit has been derived over a number of years from targeted estate action money. The upgrading of rundown council estates, coupled with management improvements and proposals for the diversification of housing tenure that have been developed in consultation with tenants, the local community and the private sector, remains a very important element of the Government's housing policy.
It may be helpful if I set the debate in context. It was in response to a question from my hon. Friend on 6 December 1991 that the Secretary of State announced the Government's decisions on the allocation of housing resources for 1992–93. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns on this score, but I must point out to him that the total resources are very substantial. Gross expenditure by the Housing Corporation in supporting housing associations—now the principal provider of new social housing—will be £1.77 billion in 1992–93. That will allow more than 50,000 new houses to be approved next year—25 per cent. more than the current year and four times more than

in 1990-91. In addition, £1.7 billion has been allocated to local authorities in the form of housing investment programme allocations for 1992–93. Of that sum, £1.3 billion was in the form of general purpose allocations. The balance of £400 million has been allocated in the form of specified capital grant for private sector renewal to assist councils in their grant aid to private owners and in their expenditure on renewal areas.
The sum of £364 million—an increase of a third over the current year—will be allocated next year to maintaining the commitment to tackling the most difficult estates under the estate action programme. An additional £215 million has been set aside for spending on housing action trusts over the next three years. That is sufficient for the housing action trusts that have been established in Waltham Forest and Hull and for four additional housing action trusts that we hope will be created in other areas.
Historically, housing resources have been distributed to regions by means of the generalised needs index, a series of indicators measuring relative housing need. In 1991–92 both annual capital guidelines and specified capital grants were distributed to regions by means of the GNI; and within regions to local authorities on the basis of 50 per cent. by GNI with the other 50 per cent.—a discretionary element—allocated by Ministers on the recommendation of regional housing controllers.
We have, however, been concerned for some time about the undue emphasis placed on formulae in distributing housing resources. The almost automatic receipt of resources by an authority regardless of its performance has done little or nothing to encourage greater efficiency and effectiveness in capital investment or in protecting that investment through improved management. Nor does it deliver the quality of service that tenants seek and deserve.
For 1992–93—next year—we concluded that we should move to a system under which good performance was rewarded through higher allocations, and clear incentives were held out for all authorities to raise their standards to the level of the best. In the current bidding round, therefore, authorities competed for a 60 per cent. share of annual capital guideline resources while 60 per cent. of specified capital grant was distributed largely on the basis of local authorities, actual performance as demonstrated by expenditure patterns.
I am aware—and my hon. Friend mentioned this in his speech—that there is disappointment in Hyndburn about the level of the borough council's housing investment programme allocation for 1992. A total allocation of £4.156 million—which is made up of an ACG of £2.406 million and resources for specified capital grant of £1.75 million—represents a 3 per cent. increase over the current year's £4.029 million. In relative terms, Hyndburn has fared better than most authorities in its region.
I know that there is particular disappointment that the Department did not agree to fund Hyndburn's three bids for new estate action schemes next year. The allocation does, however, include provision of £1.4 million to enable the ongoing projects at Fern Gore and Spring Hill to continue. Refusal to fund the new bids is a reflection not of the quality of the schemes submitted but of the success of the estate action programme generally. There is now immense competition for what are inevitably finite resources and many more schemes have been submitted than there were resources to distribute. It is true—this is


good news for the tenants for whom all this is being done—that the quality of the schemes coming forward is higher than ever before.
One of the important features of the estate action programme is the requirement for local authorities, wherever possible, to make contributions to the schemes matching those provided by the Government. That demonstrates a clear local commitment to turning round their problem estates and enables total resources committed to improving the worst estates to be "stretched" further. In Hyndburn's case we were conscious of the fact that the local authority is already working hard to make its contribution to ongoing schemes and that approval of new schemes in 1992–93 might have faced the authority with commitments it could not reasonably meet in that financial year. The regional controller for the Department has already suggested to the council that its priority should be satisfactorily to complete the schemes already embarked on before moving on to fresh ones.
My hon. Friend acknowledged—I welcome it—that Hyndburn has benefited greatly from estate action. He also referred to Mrs. Betty Court, a former chairman of housing for the council. I am glad to acknowledge the excellent work that she did during her time as chairman.
The statistics for Hyndburn tell an interesting story. Since the inception of the estate action programme in 1985 Hyndburn has received estate action resources totalling almost £10 million which has enabled almost 2,000 houses on no fewer that seven estates to be improved. That represents nearly half of Hyndburn council's housing stock of 4.179 dwellings. I know that there have been notable successes amongst the schemes that have been carried out, and I believe that that augurs well for the future. It bears repeating that the priority must be the successful completion of the current schemes.
Hyndburn has a well-earned reputation for "enabling" the private sector and housing associations to play their part in providing accommodation. I am aware of the problems of affordability in the borough and the considerable thought that has been given in particular to helping local people whose properties are the subject of clearance to stay in owner-occupation by seeking innovative schemes to help them to bridge the equity gap between the compensation from their old house and the cost of a new one.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, housing associations continue to fulfil a central role in the borough in the provision of new rented and special needs housing. In the three years to 1990–91, £7.6 million of provision received project approval from the Housing Corporation, producing 233 new dwellings. Over the next three years, between £6.1 million and £8.2 million will be spent in the authority's area by housing associations on housing for sale and for rent.
I was not surprised that my hon. Friend referred at length to the particular difficulties in the private sector, not least in relation to the expenditure on mandatory renovation grants. As he said, there is a long tradition of owner-occupation in north-east Lancashire. A very high proportion—85 per cent.—of houses in Hyndburn are privately owned, which is way above the regional and national average. Again, statistics are important: 65 per cent. of the stock was built prior to 1919, much of it with specifications inadequate by today's standards; 27 per cent. of the stock—7,500 dwellings—is unfit; and 30 per
cent.—8,500 dwellings—needs substantial repair work.

These problems are, of course, compounded by the relatively low incomes which often limit the ability of residents to invest in their property. My hon. Friend has made those points to us on several occasions.
Hyndburn is to be commended for the energy and effort that it has put into getting to grips with private sector problems. The declaration of the east Accrington renewal area facilitates a strategic and comprehensive approach to deal with the problems of the area, and I know that progress is also being made towards a renewal area declaration in west Accrington. Renewal areas encourage the development of corporate, comprehensive strategies for identified areas and, by focusing resources and efforts in that way rather than merely responding to unprompted demands, provide a sound basis for progress in regenerating those areas.
Some of Hyndburn's stock is beyond economic repair and it would be a waste of resources to seek to prop up houses which have no long-term future. It is perfectly proper for Hyndburn to use its specified capital grant allocation to pursue clearance and I know that this is an issue which my regional controller has recently discussed with the borough council.
I understand the concerns expressed about the difficulties of coping with levels of mandatory renovation grant applications. Hyndburn's problems are not untypical of other districts and towns in the north-west where there is a preponderance of older, run-down housing occupied in the main by poor people. Inevitably, until the new system introduced by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 shakes down, it will remain difficult to predict with certainty just what the likely demands for resources will be.
In the current year, the distribution of specified capital resources by the generalised needs index led to some anomalies. As security against demand exceeded resources in some areas, we purposely set aside a special allocation of supplementary credit approvals totalling £25 million—my hon. Friend referred to it—to cater for that eventuality. After the points made by my hon. Friend last year, Hyndburn was a major beneficiary, receiving a supplementary credit approval of £904,000.
Before reaching decisions on how specified capital grant resources should be distributed from the centre for 1992–93, we looked closely at the pattern of needs for resources to deal with problems of private sector stock condition and the actual spend performance of regions and individual authorities on renovation grants. A clear picture has emerged of where stock conditions were most serious and where resources to tackle those problems were inadequate. We therefore decided upon a distribution methodology which allocated resources to regions on the basis of the total number of statutorily unfit properties identified. This established a much clearer link between actual problems on the ground and the likely need for resources to tackle them.
Within regions, as I have mentioned, 40 per cent. of resources were allocated to local authorities on the basis of need as identified by the number of unfit properties and 60 per cent. mainly on the basis of actual performance as determined, in the main, by local authorities' spending patterns. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a clear logic to having a system which not only recognises need but pays particular attention to a local authority's track record and its ability to deliver.
As we had expected, the new approach favours regions like the north-west with its higher proportion of pre-1919 owner-occupied dwellings—a legacy of its industrial heyday. In fact, in 1992–93 a total SCG of £52.9 million has been allocated to the north-west region as compared with £45.2 million in the current year—a 17 per cent. increase. Significantly, the new figure closely matches the likely regional outturn for the current year and will therefore, I hope, go some way towards mitigating the mismatch between demand and resources which became evident in the current year.
Hyndburn's SCG for 1992–93 of £1.7 million is 19 per cent. more than this year's £1.47 million. Coupled with the supplementary credit approval of £904,000 already received, it should provide a sound basis for continuing progress to be made in renewing the borough's urban fabric. I appreciate that, in common with other authorities, Hyndburn would like a larger allocation.
What is often not fully appreciated is that the new finance system set up by the 1989 Act gives local authorities flexibility to meet demand for grant expenditure. The allowance an authority receives for renovation and other specified capital grants in its housing investment programme is not a ceiling. The council can spend if it needs to by using its other resources. As an added safeguard against unforeseen demands for mandatory grants, we have again set aside a reserve of supplementary credit approvals—this time £30 million—for use in circumstances where an authority considers that its basic credit approval will be insufficient to meet demand for housing specified capital grant in any single year. Of course, as in the current year, any such application would

have to be considered on its merits, and a particular consideration would be evidence that the level of mandatory grants actually approved by the authority was high in relation to the resources available. Authorities will again be invited to submit bids for SCAs during the course of 1992-93. Therefore, an authority such as Hyndburn, which has been through the process once before, should look to the coming year with confidence that, in addition to the allocation that has been made, it will have an opportunity to bid for additional resources if it appears that demand has heavily outstripped supply. I hope that my reassurance is of help to my hon. Friend.
In conclusion, I think it can be said that Hyndburn has come out of the 1992 housing investment programme round well, with a higher resource allocation than that for the current year. There remains scope in all authorities to improve the management of capital programmes and housing stock, introduce new management practices, work more closely with the local community and fully to engage the housing associations and private sector as a means of making resources go further and securing better value for money. Resources for housing are already very substantial but they are finite. Local authorities should temper their plans with realism. Increased efficiency rather than ever-growing allocations points the way forward; and the new system of competitive HIPs that we have introduced provides a basis for rewarding those authorities who most clearly demonstrate their effectiveness.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the position in Hyndburn to the attention of the House this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.